ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
The Effect of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Containing Bacterial Cellulose Nanocrystal as a Base on the Fracture Resistance of Class II Restorations.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) are commonly used as base materials in restorative dentistry due to their fluoride release and chemical bonding properties. Incorporating bacterial cellulose nanocrystals (BCNCs) into RMGIC may improve its mechanical properties, especially fracture resistance (FR), which is critical in Class II restorations. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of BCNC-reinforced RMGIC on the fracture resistance and fracture patterns mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities restored premolars using the sandwich technique. Material and Methods: Sixty sound human maxillary premolars were randomly divided into five groups (n = 12) based on the restoration protocol: Group I) intact teeth (positive control); Group II) MOD cavities left unrestored (negative control); Group III) MOD cavities restored with short-fiber reinforced composite (SFRC) only; Group IV) MOD cavities restored with conventional RMGIC + SFRC; Group V) MOD cavities restored with 1% BCNC-reinforced RMGIC + SFRC. The restorations in groups III to V were finally covered with 1 mm of nanohybride composite. All specimens underwent thermocycling. Fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine, and fracture patterns were classified as restorable or unrestorable based on the CEJ level. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (P < 0.05). Results: The negative control group (Group II) exhibited significantly lower fracture resistance compared to all other groups (P < 0.001). Group V (BCNC-modified RMGIC+SFRC) showed the highest fracture resistance, but no significant differences were found among Groups I (intact teeth), III (SFRC only), IV (RMGIC+SFRC), and V (P > 0.05). Group II had predominantly unrestorable fractures, while other groups showed a higher proportion of restorable fractures. Conclusions: The incorporation of BCNC into RMGIC as a base in Class II restorations improved fracture resistance and resulted in more favorable fracture patterns, suggesting its potential as a reinforcing agent in restorative dentistry.
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.