Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41907980›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2025

Comparative evaluation of compressive strength among different glass ionomer cements.

Puja Chavan, Yash Rajendra Shaha, Suyash Pratap Singh, Supriya Makam, Ashwini Komalan, Arti Gachake, Mrunal Dave, Pratik Surana

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Puja ChavanConsultant Endodontist, The Dental Corner, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Yash Rajendra ShahaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Tatyasaheb Kore Dental College and Research Centre, New Pargaon, Maharashtra, India.
Suyash Pratap SinghDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Supriya MakamDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rajarajeswari Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Ashwini KomalanDepartment of Prosthodontics, Rural Dental College, PIMS, Loni, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India.
Arti GachakeDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Mrunal DaveDepartment of Aesthetic Dentistry, Bethlehem Smile Design, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA.
Pratik SuranaDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Maitri College of Dentistry and Research Centre, Durg, Chhattisgarh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relatively low compressive strength of conventional glass ionomer cements limits their use in stress-bearing areas, necessitating evaluation of newer reinforced variant. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate compressive strength of different types of glass ionomer cements (GIC): conventional GIC (Group A), Zirconomer (Group B) and Amalgomer CR (Group C). Each group consisted of 12 specimens formed in plastic straws with 4mm 6mm dimension. Compressive strength was assessed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Result showed that Zirconomer exhibited the highest compressive strength, indicating its superior performance compared to the other materials.

Indexed as

amalgomer CRcompressive strengthGlass ionomer cementzirconomer

Identifiers

PMID41907980
PMCPMC13018410

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.