ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Dentin Bond Strength Between a Bioactive Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and a Conventional Self-Adhesive Resin Cement: An In Vitro Study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimBond strength is one of the most important requirements for luting cements. Recently, bioactivity has been added to some cements to improve bond strength and mechanical and biological properties. This study aimed to compare the dentin shear bond strength between a bioactive resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a conventional self-adhesive resin cement. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in dentin shear bond strength between the bioactive resin-modified glass ionomer cement and the conventional self-adhesive resin cement. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 24 freshly extracted and collected mandibular premolars were embedded in acrylic bases, and the occlusal surface was shortened by 2 mm to expose the dentin. The specimens were divided equally into the following two groups: group A, the bioactive resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) group (ACTIVA; Watertown, MA: Pulpdent), and group B, the conventional self-adhesive resin cement (Breeze; Wallingford, CT: Pentron). A total of 24 discs of the two cements were bonded to the occlusal dentin surface. The specimens were immersed in artificial saliva for 30 days and then subjected to 1000 thermal cycles at temperatures of 5°-55°C. The shear bond strength (SBS) test was then performed. The independent-samples t-test was used.
resultsThe mean shear bond strength (SBS) of ACTIVA cement (group A) was 7.65±1.11 MPa, which was significantly higher than the mean of the Breeze group (group B) at 5.23±0.82 MPa (t=6.065, p<0.001), showing a mean difference of 2.42 MPa. Data in both groups were normally distributed, as indicated by the Shapiro-Wilk test (p>0.05). Consequently, the null hypothesis of no significant difference in dentin shear bond strength between the two materials was rejected.
conclusionsThe dentin bond strength of bioactive resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) was significantly higher than that of conventional self-adhesive resin cement. This finding underscores the effectiveness of bioactive glass components in stimulating hydroxyapatite formation, thereby strengthening chemical adhesion to dentin. Bioactive RMGIC is therefore recommended for luting restorations on vital abutments with compromised mechanical retention or large areas of exposed dentin, such as short or over-tapered preparations.
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.