Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40511109›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025

Rohit Nagar, Simone Grandini, Carlo Gaeta, Sumit Dubey, Niladri Maiti, Madhura Avinash Jadhav, Neerieza Konthoujam

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Rohit NagarDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Kalka Dental College, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Simone GrandiniDepartment of Endodontics, Periodontology, Restorative and Paediatric Dentistry, University of Siena, Italy.
Carlo GaetaUnit of Periodontology, Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Italy.
Sumit DubeyDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, DJ Dental College and Hospital, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Niladri MaitiSchool of Dentistry, Central Asian University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Madhura Avinash JadhavDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Neerieza KonthoujamIntern, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The study aims to assess and contrast the compressive strengths of three aesthetically pleasing restorative materials. Materials and Methods: Using metallic molds, 30 pellets were created, then split into 3 groups of 10, each meeting the required specifications. Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) cylindrical specimens are in Group A; Resin Modified GIC (RMGIC) cylindrical specimens are in Group B; and Zirconomer cylindrical specimens are in Group C. A universal testing equipment was used to compress all of the samples, and the results were acquired. Tukey's Result: Zirconomer's compressive strength is significantly higher than that of RMGIC and GIC. Conclusion: The compressive strength of Zirconomer is the highest. As a result, Zirconomer may be the preferred material for aesthetic restorative procedures.

Indexed as

Compressive strength (CS)GICRMGICuniversal testing machinezirconomer

Identifiers

PMID40511109
PMCPMC12156493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.