ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Comparative Evaluation of Setting Time and Antibacterial Efficacy of Cinnamic Acid-incorporated Glass Ionomer Cement: An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim and background: Glass ionomer cement (GIC) possess properties to fulfill the prerequisites of a restorative material for atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). Enhancing the antibacterial property of GIC remains the pressing priority to reduce the occurrence of secondary caries. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the setting time and antibacterial efficacy of cinnamic acid (CA)-incorporated GIC against Materials and methods: CA powder was incorporated into the GIC powder in varying concentrations. For testing the setting time, the total samples of 15 disks were divided into five groups, namely-I: control-unmodified GIC, II: 2.5% CA + GIC, III: 5% CA + GIC, IV: 7.5% CA + GIC, and V: 10% CA + GIC. Setting time was evaluated after 30 seconds of mixing the powder and liquid by lowering a flat-end needle indentor. Similarly, for testing the antibacterial efficacy against Results: CA-modified GIC exhibited an increase in setting time and ZOI with the increase in concentration of CA, and this difference was found to be statistically significant between the groups. Conclusion: CA-incorporated GIC has greater antibacterial efficacy against the caries-causing bacteria with an acceptable change in setting time. Clinical significance: GIC with higher antibacterial potential can markedly decrease the occurrence of secondary caries and failure of restorations. How to cite this article: Madhuvathani R, Vinodh S, Mahesh Mathian V,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.