[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-458247-105":59,"doc-detail-458247-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","a-comparative-evaluation-of-marginal-leakage-and-shear-bond-strength-of-cention-n-resin-modified-glass-ionomer-cement-rmgic-and-conventional-glass-ionomer-cement-gic-an-in-vitro-study","A Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Leakage and Shear Bond Strength of Cention N, Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC), and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC): An In Vitro Study","","This in vitro study compares and evaluates marginal leakage and dentin shear bond strength of Cention N and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) against conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC). Thirty extracted premolars were used for marginal leakage scoring after thermocycling and methylene blue dye immersion, with stereomicroscopic examination. A separate shear bond test measured dentin SBS after bonding and 24-hour humid storage, alongside fracture mode assessment. Statistical analysis included Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, one-way ANOVA with post hoc tests, and chi-square. Results showed Cention N had the least leakage and highest SBS.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/a-comparative-evaluation-of-marginal-leakage-and-shear-bond-strength-of-cention-n-resin-modified-glass-ionomer-cement-rmgic-and-conventional-glass-ionomer-cement-gic-an-in-vitro-study/458247/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/a-comparative-evaluation-of-marginal-leakage-and-shear-bond-strength-of-cention-n-resin-modified-glass-ionomer-cement-rmgic-and-conventional-glass-ionomer-cement-gic-an-in-vitro-study/458247.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Jake","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-07","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",15,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What materials were compared in the study?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"Cention N, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC Type IX).","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How was marginal leakage evaluated?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"Thirty premolars were restored and thermocycled, then immersed in 0.5% methylene blue dye for 24 hours, sectioned, and examined under a stereomicroscope for scoring.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What were the main findings regarding bond strength and leakage?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"Cention N showed the least marginal leakage and the highest dentin shear bond strength, followed by RMGIC, while GIC Type IX performed poorest.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},458247,1790796145,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":145,"read_time":146,"preview_page_count":4},962084928904,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Review began 11/10/2025  \nReview ended 11/29/2025  \nPublished 12/08/2025  \n© Copyright 2025  \nSingh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0. , which permits unrestricted use , distribution , and reproduction in any medium , provided the original author and source are credited.  \nDOI: 10.7759/cureus.98770  \nOpen Access Original Article  \nA Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Leakage and Shear Bond Strength of Cention N, ResinModified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) , and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) : An In Vitro Study  \nKhushboo Singh 1, Debapriya Pradhan 1, Saurabh Tiwari 2 , Raksha Thakur 1, Priyamvada Sharma 2,  \nDevika Agrawal 1, Mahima Singh 3, Devshree Jawalikar 4, Delphina Michael Kapoor 1, Jyoti Priiya Kodimela  \n1  \n1. Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Hitkarini Dental College and Hospital, Jabalpur, IND 2. Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Hitkarini Dental College and Hospital, Jabalpur, IND 3. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Surendera Dental College and Research Institute, Sri Ganganagar, IND 4. Department of Dentistry, Clove Dental, Mumbai, IND  \nCorresponding author: Khushboo Singh, [khushboo786.ks@gmail.com](khushboo786.ks@gmail.com)  \nAbstract  \nAim: This study aimed to compare and evaluate the marginal leakage and dentin shear bond strength (SBS) of Cention N and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and to compare them with conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) (GC Fuji IX, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) .  \nMethods: For the evaluation of marginal leakage, 30 extracted premolars were randomly divided into three groups. Class I cavities were prepared, and the cavities were restored with Cention N, RMGIC, and GIC Type IX. After thermocycling, the specimens were immersed in 0.5% methylene blue dye for 24 hours. They were then sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope at 40× magnification for scoring. Data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. For dentin SBS evaluation, theocclusal surfaces of 30 premolars were ground flat, and cylinders of three restorative materials (n = 10 per group), Cention N, RMGIC, and GIC Type IX, were bonded to the surfaces following the manufacturers’instructions. After 24 hours of storage at 100% humidity, dentin SBS was measured, and fracture modes were assessed under a stereomicroscope at 10× magnification. Data were statistically analyzed using the one-way ANOVA with the least significant difference post hoc test for SBS, and the chi-square test for fracture modes (p \u003C 0 .05) .  \nResults: Cention N had the least marginal leakage and highest dentin SBS, followed by RMGIC and GIC type IX.  \nConclusion: Cention N showed the least marginal leakage and highest dentin SBS, followed by RMGIC, while GIC Type IX performed the poorest. Thus, Cention N is recommended as a permanent restorative material for better clinical success and longevity.  \nCategories: Dentistry  \nKeywords: kruskal-wallis, lsd post hoc, methylene blue, stereomicroscope, thermocycling  \nIntroduction  \nThe human tooth is a complex organ with a limited capacity for regeneration. The specialized tissues within it have a weak ability to heal themselves, making the preservation of vitality crucial. Therefore, replacing lost tooth structure is essential to maintain its form, functionality, esthetics, and long-term clinical durability [1] . For many years, dental amalgam has served as a trusted and commonly used material. However, its limitations, including mercury toxicity, higher coefficient of thermal expansion, and poor esthetics, prompted the development of alternative solutions. In 1972, Wilson and Kent introduced glass ionomer cement (GIC), which forms chemical adhesive bonds with tooth structure. Since then, GIC has gained widespread use due to its numerous advantages, such as moderate esthetics, radiopacity, biocompatibility, anticariogenic char","cbCaikvTdWe45xq7","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikvTdWe45xq7","pdf",10872146,14,"English","# Abstract\n# Aim\n# Methods\n# Results\n# Conclusion\n# Introduction\n# How to Cite This Article","[{\"question\":\"What materials were compared in the study?\",\"answer\":\"Cention N, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC Type IX).\"},{\"question\":\"How was marginal leakage evaluated?\",\"answer\":\"Thirty premolars were restored and thermocycled, then immersed in 0.5% methylene blue dye for 24 hours, sectioned, and examined under a stereomicroscope for scoring.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the main findings regarding bond strength and leakage?\",\"answer\":\"Cention N showed the least marginal leakage and the highest dentin shear bond strength, followed by RMGIC, while GIC Type IX performed poorest.\"}]","A Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Leakage and Shear Bond Strength of Cention N, Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC), and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC): An In Vitro Study | PDF",1790752322,35]