Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42701754›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2026

Comparative analysis of fluoride release from type II GIC, ketac molar and ketac universal: An

Sushmita Shivanna, Prakash H, Juan M, Murali Sivakumar, Megavarnan Ravi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2026. 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

5 authors.

Sushmita ShivannaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sathyabama Dental College & Hospital, Tamil Nadu, India.
Prakash HDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sathyabama Dental College & Hospital, Tamil Nadu, India.
Juan MDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sathyabama Dental College & Hospital, Tamil Nadu, India.
Murali SivakumarDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sathyabama Dental College & Hospital, Tamil Nadu, India.
Megavarnan RaviDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sathyabama Dental College & Hospital, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limited evidence exists regarding the comparative fluoride release of different glass ionomer restorative materials used in clinical dentistry. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate and compare the fluoride release of Type II GIC, Ketac Molar, and Ketac Universal at different time intervals. Fluoride ion release from these materials was assessed over 1, 7, and 28 days using a UV-visible spectrophotometer. Significant differences in fluoride release were observed among the materials (p < 0.001). Ketac Universal showed the highest fluoride release at all evaluated intervals. Fluoride release from Ketac Molar and Ketac Universal increased over time, whereas Type II GIC remained relatively unchanged. The superior fluoride release of Ketac Universal suggests its potential clinical advantage for long-term caries prevention in patients at high risk of dental caries.

Indexed as

caries preventionFluoride releaseGIC cementshigh-viscosity GICketac molarketac universalType II GICUV spectrophotometer

Identifiers

PMID42701754
PMCPMC13545937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.