ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Evaluation of the Physical Properties of Different Modifications of Glass Ionomer Dental Restorative Materials in Primary Dentition: A Comparative
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Flexural Strength of Different Restorative Materials Used for Direct Restoration in Pediatric Dentistry: An In Vitro Study.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the physical properties of different modifications of glass ionomer cement, namely giomer, zirconomer, and type IX glass ionomer cement (GIC) (pediatric), with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in the primary dentition in terms of their compressive strength (CS), flexural strength (FS), wear resistance, and microleakage. Materials and methods: A total of 224 extracted human primary molars were selected and allocated into three interventions and one control group ( Results: Type IX GIC (pediatric) exhibited significantly greater CS, FS, and wear resistance in primary teeth as compared to RMGIC, giomer, and zirconomer in primary teeth. However, there was no significant difference in microleakage among the tested restorative materials. Conclusion: Primary teeth restored with type IX GIC (pediatric) exhibited superior physical properties compared to other materials tested. However, further Clinical relevance: Although GIC is the most frequently used dental material for restorative purposes in pediatric dentistry, the long-term success of conventional GIC is questionable due to suboptimal physical properties. The results of the study will help restore primary teeth with improved physical properties and long-term success. How to cite this article: Mehta V, Srivastava N, Chaudhry SA,
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.