ArticleBMC oral health2025
The effect of different glass ionomer cements and surface coating applications on fluoride release and microhardness values.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Additive Incorporation on Fluoride Release of Orthodontic Glass Ionomer Cements and Adhesives: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- SEM evaluation of dental cement surface morphology and microbial adhesion - a comparative study.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe glass-ionomer cements have many advantages such as the ability to form chemical bonding at the tooth-restoration interface, release and recharge of fluoride, low cytotoxicity and high biocompatibility. But their low mechanical properties and susceptibility to moisture contamination during hardening limit their usage the regions exposed to high stress. The surface coatings used to protect the physical and mechanical properties of the material reduce fluoride release. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the effects of different glass-ionomer cements and surface coatings on fluoride-release and microhardness.
methodsThree glass-ionomer cements; Ketac Molar Easymix (conventional), EQUIA Forte Fil (high-viscosity hybrid), and ChemFil Rock (high-viscosity zinc) were tested. Each cement formed 21 specimens, subdivided into control, petroleum jelly, and coat groups. Samples were submerged in deionized water, with fluoride release measured using an ion-selective electrode on days 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, and 56. Microhardness was assessed using a universal testing device at baseline and after 130 days.
resultsMicrohardness was assessed using a universal testing device at baseline and after 130 days. EQUIA Forte Fil showed the highest fluoride-release, while ChemFil Rock had the lowest (p ≤ 0.05). Surface treatments reduced fluoride-release for all materials, with no difference between petroleum jelly and coat groups. The highest microhardness was in EQUIA Forte Fil/control (baseline), and the lowest was in EQUIA Forte Fil/coat (p ≤ 0.05). Both EQUIA Forte Fil/control and ChemFil Rock/control showed decreased microhardness over 130 days (p ≤ 0.05).
conclusionsThe results demonstrate that the coating of glass-ionomer surfaces reduce fluoride release via preserving surface integrity but it may potentially limit remineralization and anticariogenic benefits. The surface coating reduces the deformation in the structure of the material and microhardness change. These effects should be consider on treatment planning.
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.