ArticleCureus2026
An In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Nanoparticle Graphene Oxide on Compressive Strength of Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements (GICs).
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConventional glass ionomer cements (CGICs) exhibit favorable properties, including chemical adhesion and fluoride release, but demonstrate limited mechanical strength, restricting their use in posterior stress-bearing restorations. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) offer improved mechanical performance, yet remain inferior to resin composites. Nanotechnology, particularly graphene oxide incorporation, has emerged as a promising strategy to enhance the mechanical properties of dental cements. This in vitro study evaluated the effect of 2 wt% nanographene oxide (nGO) on the compressive strength of CGIC and RMGIC. MATERIAL AND
methodsEighty cylindrical specimens (6 mm × 4 mm) were fabricated and allocated to four groups (n = 20): CGIC control, CGIC + 2 wt% nGO, RMGIC control, and RMGIC + 2 wt% nGO. nGO powder was blended with cement powders at 2 wt% concentration and homogenized using an amalgamator. Specimens were stored at 37°C and 100% relative humidity for 24 hours. Compressive strength was measured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test (p < 0.05).
resultsANOVA revealed significant differences among groups (p < 0.001, η² = 0.59). RMGIC + nGO demonstrated the highest mean compressive strength (104.10 ± 42.3 MPa), followed by RMGIC control (95.91 ± 36.69 MPa), CGIC + nGO (36.73 ± 10.27 MPa), and CGIC control (29.00 ± 6.11 MPa). RMGIC groups exhibited significantly higher compressive strength than CGIC groups (p < 0.001). However, within each material type, nGO incorporation did not yield statistically significant improvements (CGIC: p = 0.829; RMGIC: p = 0.802).
conclusionIncorporation of 2 wt% nGO did not significantly enhance compressive strength in either CGIC or RMGIC. RMGIC demonstrated substantially superior compressive strength compared to CGIC regardless of nGO modification. Further investigation with varied concentrations and long-term aging studies is warranted to optimize nGO reinforcement.
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.