ArticleCureus2025
Compressive Strength of Glass Ionomers With Different Polymerization Mechanisms: A Comparative In Vitro Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of the study is to evaluate the compressive strength of different glass ionomer cements with distinct polymerization mechanisms through an in vitro experimental design.
methodsFour materials were analyzed: GC Fuji IX GP Fast GIC (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and Maxxion R FGM (FGM, Joinville, Brazil) (self-curing) and GC Fuji II LC (GC Corporation) and Riva Light Cure SDI (SDI, Bayswater, Australia) (light-curing). One hundred cylindrical specimens (25 per material) were prepared following ISO 9917-1:2007 standards and stored in artificial saliva at 37°C for 15 days before undergoing compression tests.
resultsStatistically significant differences (p < 0.001) were found between materials, with Riva Light Cure SDI exhibiting the highest compressive strength (1,603.7 kN) and tensile strength (121.47 MPa), which were significantly superior to those of other materials. Surprisingly, no significant differences (p = 0.911) were found between GC Fuji IX GP Fast (self-curing, 911.2 kN) and GC Fuji II LC (light-curing, 965.8 kN), suggesting that the manufacturer's specific chemical composition had a greater influence than the polymerization mechanism. Maxxion R FGM presented the lowest values (613.0 kN), but with less variability.
conclusionGlass ionomer cements can be classified into three performance categories: high (Riva Light Cure SDI), intermediate (GC products), and basic (Maxxion R FGM), providing a framework for clinical selection based on specific requirements. The statistical equivalence between GC products with different polymerization mechanisms offers valuable flexibility for diverse clinical situations in pediatric dentistry.
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.