ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Comparative Evaluation of Hardness in Ceramic Reinforced, Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Microhardness and Chemical Composition of Glass Ionomer and Glass Hybrid Cements Modified with Experimental Bioactive Glasses.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2026Article
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: This study compares the hardness of ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement (Amalgomer CR), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) using Vicker's microhardness tester. Materials and Methods: Nine disc-shaped specimens (5mm diameter, 2mm thickness) were prepared from three materials: Group A (GIC), Group B (Amalgomer CR), and Group C (RMGIC). Hardness was tested after 24 hours of storage at room temperature. Result: Group B showed the highest mean hardness (66.13±5.25), followed by Group A (65.63±8.07) and Group C (62.13±13.70). Differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Although Amalgomer CR exhibited slightly higher hardness due to its ceramic component, the differences among the materials were not statistically significant. Clinical significance: Hardness is a key property for dental restorations, ensuring durability by resisting deformation and maintaining integrity during mastication.
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.