ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Comparative Assessment of Microleakage in Nanoformulated and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement under Simulated Aging: A Stereomicroscopic Study.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of the study is to assess the microleakage of nanoformulated and conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) under simulated aging. Materials and methods: Nanoformulated GIC was synthesized by incorporating chitosan-titanium-zirconia-hydroxyapatite (Ch-Ti-Zr-HA) nanoparticles into GIC powder at concentrations of 3%, 5%, and 10%. The materials were characterized using UV-visible diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (UV-DRS) and X-ray diffraction (XRD). A total of forty freshly extracted, sound permanent molar teeth were selected for the study and divided into four groups: Group I (3% nanoformulated GIC), group II (5% nanoformulated GIC), group III (10% nanoformulated GIC), and group IV (conventional GIC). Standardized class I cavities were prepared on the occlusal surfaces, restored, and subjected to thermocycling between 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 30 seconds in a water bath. To prevent dye penetration, root apices were sealed, and all tooth surfaces-except the restoration and a 1 mm margin around it-were coated with two layers of nail varnish. The specimens were then immersed in a 0.5% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. Following immersion, the teeth were sectioned mesiodistally, and the extent of microleakage was assessed under a stereomicroscope using a predefined scoring system. The collected data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni test. Results: The least microleakage was observed in the 5% and 10% nanoformulated GIC groups, with no statistically significant difference between them ( Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that incorporating nanotechnology is a valuable approach to enhancing the clinical performance of GIC. 5% and 10% nanoformulated GIC containing Ch-Ti-Zr-HA demonstrates significant potential as a restorative material, offering microleakage resistance superior to conventional GIC. How to cite this article: Alex A, Paulraj J, Ngoubinah Pretty TM,
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.