ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Microleakage of Different Forms of Glass Ionomer Cements in Primary Molars: 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
Background: Microleakage is the major clinical cause for the failure of restorations in cavities, as margins of such restorations are generally located in dentin/cementum. Glass Ionomer cements have the ability to form both chemical and micromechanical bond with the tooth surface, which increases adhesion to the tooth substance, increases retention, and as a result, reduces cavosurface microleakage. Equia Forte fil and Equia fill HT are new ultrafine and highly reactive glasses which is dispersed within the glass ionomer fillers to accelerate and enhance matrix formation after mixing. Aim: To assess and compare the Methods: Class II cavity was prepared on 48 freshly extracted human noncarious primary molar teeth and then randomly divided into three groups: group I: restored with high viscosity conventional GIC (GC Gold Label IX Extra) in capsule form with dentin conditioner. Group II: restored bulk filled glass hybrid (GC Equia Forte fil) in capsule form with dentin conditioner. Group III: restored with advanced glass hybrid (GC Equia Forte HT) in capsule form with dentin conditioner. A dye penetration test was performed to analyze the microleakage in all three groups. Statistical analysis: The statistical software, namely SPSS version 24.0 was used for the analysis of the data. Results: The distribution of different dye penetration scores among the three study groups was compared by using a Chi-square test, and it was found that the distribution was not significantly different among the study groups ( Conclusion: High-viscosity conventional glass ionomer showed lesser microleakage than bulk-filled glass hybrid glass ionomer cements. How to cite this article: Snehi, Pathivada L, Garg N,
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.