ReviewBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2025
Improving glass Ionomer performance through plant extracts: a systematic review of
Review in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 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.
- Effect of Titanium Dioxide (TiOMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of antibacterial efficiency ofJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review aimed to systematically map and synthesize the available evidence from Materials and methods: The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The search strategy, based on the Population Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework, was applied to four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science), yielding 2,614 initial records. The Quality Assessment Tool for In Vitro Studies (QUINN Tool) was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Data regarding plant species, GIC types, modification methods, and outcome measures were extracted and synthesized narratively due to methodological heterogeneity. Results: The analysis of the 14 included studies revealed that Conclusions: The incorporation of plant extracts presents a promising strategy for improving the antibacterial performance of GICs while preserving their beneficial properties. However, the current body of evidence is constrained by methodological inconsistencies and critical gaps in safety and long-term efficacy evaluation. Future research must prioritize standardized protocols, comprehensive biocompatibility testing, and analyses under conditions that better simulate the oral environment to ensure clinical translatability.
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.