ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Enhanced glass ionomer cement with bioactive additives for collagen synthesis and inflammation in pulp-rabbit teeth.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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.
- Biological Performance of Modified Glass Ionomer Cement: Antibacterial Activity, Cytocompatibility, and Rabbit Pulpal Response.International dental journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to enhance conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) by incorporating 15 % chitosan, 5 % bovine serum albumin (BSA), 0.05 % tricalcium phosphate (TCP), and 1 μg translationally controlled tumor protein (TCTP), resulting in an enhanced-GIC formulation. The study evaluated its adhesion properties, biocompatibility, and ability to promote pulp tissue healing in rabbit anterior teeth. Materials and methods: The enhanced-GIC was tested in a rabbit model to assess its physical adhesion and biological effects on pulp tissue. Following cavity preparation and material placement, the teeth were observed for 21 days. Histological evaluations focused on inflammation, toxicity, and collagen synthesis in pulp tissue. Result: The enhanced-GIC showed comparable adhesion properties to conventional GIC. Histological analysis revealed no significant inflammation or toxicity in the pulp tissue of either group. The enhanced-GIC group exhibited superior biocompatibility, demonstrated by increased lymphocyte infiltration and enhanced collagen synthesis within the pulp tissue, suggesting its potential for promoting tissue regeneration. Conclusion: The enhanced-GIC formulation shows promise as a sublining material in restorative dentistry, offering benefits in pulp tissue healing and collagen formation, while maintaining adhesion comparable to conventional GIC. This study highlights enhanced-GIC's potential for use in dental restorative procedures, particularly for cases requiring pulp regeneration.
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.