Primary study · included by 3 reviews

Cyclic AMP and cyclic GMP accumulation in hamster pre-ovulatory follicles stimulated with LH and FSH.

Shimizu 2021 · Makris A, Ryan K J · Acta endocrinologica · 1978

Included by

Fluoride release and mechanical properties of S-PRG fillers in dental materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Shimizu 2021 · Table 1; Fig. 2; Fig. 3
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
Mechanical strength (diametral tensile and flexural strength)
S-PRG (surface pre-reacted glass-ionomer) filler-containing materials vs Non-S-PRG comparator materials (resin-based and glass ionomer-based)
MD 8.3 [7.9, 8.7]NRGRADE not reported
Fluoride release
S-PRG (surface pre-reacted glass-ionomer) filler-containing materials vs Non-S-PRG comparator materials (resin-based and glass ionomer-based)
MD -2.4 [-3.0, -1.9]NRGRADE not reported
Fluoride release
S-PRG (surface pre-reacted glass-ionomer) filler-containing materials vs Non-S-PRG comparator materials (resin-based and glass ionomer-based)
MD -3.21 [-4.12, -2.30]7 studiesLow
Mechanical strength (diametral tensile and flexural strength)
S-PRG (surface pre-reacted glass-ionomer) filler-containing materials vs Non-S-PRG comparator materials (resin-based and glass ionomer-based)
MD 9.45 [-7.89, 26.79]NRLow
Mechanical strength (diametral tensile and flexural strength)
S-PRG (surface pre-reacted glass-ionomer) filler-containing materials vs Non-S-PRG comparator materials (resin-based and glass ionomer-based)
MD 8.91 [-9.13, 26.96]6 studies · 80 participantsLow
Fluoride release
S-PRG (surface pre-reacted glass-ionomer) filler-containing materials vs Non-S-PRG comparator materials (resin-based and glass ionomer-based)
MD -3.54 [-4.57, -2.50]8 studies · 132 participantsLow

The review does not say which of its outcomes this study informs.

Also linked to PM42728586-P21-O1, which does not match a current question in this review.

3 including reviews in total.