ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Compressive and Flexural Strength Among Three Types of Glass Ionomer Cements: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Surface Roughness and Color Stability of Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement Reinforced With a Nanofiller Synthesized by the Coprecipitation Method.International journal of biomaterials · 2026Article
- Evaluating the antimicrobial effect, compressive strength and fluoride release of glass ionomer cement modified with Triphala.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of compressive strength among different glass ionomer cements.Bioinformation · 2025Article
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
Background Glass ionomer cements (GICs) are widely used restorative materials in dental procedures as they release fluorides, chemically adhere to tooth structure, and are biocompatible. Despite these advantages, their mechanical properties vary. Hence, this study aimed to compare the compressive and flexural strengths of three types of GICs, namely, conventional GIC, resin-modified GIC (RMGIC), and zirconia-reinforced GIC (Zirconomer). Methodology An in vitro study was conducted on 120 extracted natural teeth. The 120 specimens were divided into the following three groups of 40 samples: Group A (RMGIC; GC FujiCem; 13.3 g), Group B (conventional GIC; GC Gold Label 2; 15 g powder, 10 mL liquid), and Group C (Zirconomer; SHOFU Zirconomer Improved; 12 g powder, 5 mL liquid). Plastic straws measuring 4 mm in diameter and 6 mm in height were used as molds. Materials were manipulated according to the manufacturer's instructions, with light curing performed for RMGIC. All samples were coated with GIC varnish and stored in deionized water at 37°C for 30 days. Flexural strength was tested using rectangular specimens (4 × 6 × 25 mm) on a Universal Testing Machine after 24 hours of water storage. Compressive strength was measured on cylindrical specimens using an INSTRON E 3000 universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute, and values were calculated using the following formula: CS = 4F/πD². Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance and Bonferroni post-hoc tests. Results Statistically significant mean measures were seen among all three groups. Group B (conventional GIC) showed the highest compressive and flexural strength, which was statistically significant, compared to the other two groups. Conclusions Within the limits of the study, conventional GIC had higher compressive strength and flexural strength, indicating enhanced durability.
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.