ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Analysis of Flexural and Compressive Strengths of Bioactive Alkasite Compared to Other Ion-Releasing Restorative Materials.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Materials and Techniques in Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Orthodontics (Second Edition).Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Natural Bioactive Compounds in Dental Materials: Balancing Biological Activity and Functional Properties.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- AnBioinformation · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIon-releasing and bioactive restorative materials are an integral part of restorative dentistry, especially in light of minimally invasive and esthetic intervention strategies. Their strength and mechanical properties directly influence their durability and indicated use.
methodsThis study aimed to comparatively analyze the compressive strengths, flexural strengths, and flexural moduli of bioactive Alkasite (Cention N) and other ion-releasing restorative materials, specifically a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC, Fuji II LC) and a compomer (Dyract XP). Cylindrical and bar-shaped specimens were fabricated from each material (
resultsThe results revealed significant differences in mechanical properties between the tested materials. Dyract XP showed the greatest compressive and flexural strengths (170.79 ± 23.59 MPa and 114.09 ± 30.78 MPa) (
conclusionsThe findings indicated that the investigated compomer could produce stronger restorations than the investigated alkasite and RMGIC, which would make them preferred for posterior teeth restoration. However, the alkasite Cention N might still be a good option for the treatment of carious lesions in areas with less occlusal stress.
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.