ReviewDentistry journal2019
Adhesive Systems Used in Indirect Restorations Cementation: Review of the Literature.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical performance of resin-matrix ceramic partial coverage restorations: a systematic review.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of Post-Cementation Sensitivity Between Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement as a Luting Material-A Randomized Clinical Trial.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Trial
- Effect of deep margin elevation with different injectable materials on performance of CAD/CAM-Fabricated nanoceramic-resin onlays: 3-year randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Clinical performance of indirect hybrid ceramic onlay restorations cemented with injectable resin composite versus dual-cure resin cement: an 18-month randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Effect of diode laser on micro-tensile bond strength of hybrid ceramic restorations to dentin using one-step and two-step self-etch adhesives: in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Functional Adhesives for a Restorative Future.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Strategic Adhesion and Dental Tissue Conservation: Contemporary Perspectives on Interfacial Bond Longevity and Minimally Invasive Restorative Designs.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Preheated Composite for Prosthetic Cementation to Enamel and Dentin: A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Fracture resistance and marginal fit of three different overlay designs using advanced zirconia-reinforced lithium disilicate CAD/CAM material.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Bonding effectiveness of multi-step adhesive resin cements to CAD/CAM blocks: impact of thermal cycling and surface treatment methods.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Dental Luting Cements: An Updated Comprehensive Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Biomechanical Testing of Two-Unit Bridges and a Comparison of Replacement Retention Depending on a Cementation Medium, Replacement Position, and Gap Size.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Article
- Present status and future directions: The restoration of root filled teeth.International endodontic journal · 2022Review
- Article
- Physicochemical Properties of Dentine Subjected to Microabrasive Blasting and Its Influence on Bonding to Self-Adhesive Prosthetic Cement in Shear Bond Strength Test: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A novel dentin bonding scheme based on extrafibrillar demineralization combined with covalent adhesion using a dry-bonding technique.Bioactive materials · 2021Article
- Water-Airborne-Particle Abrasion as a Pre-Treatment to Improve Bioadhesion and Bond Strength of Glass-Ceramic Restorations: From In Vitro Study to 15-Year Survival Rate.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The One-Year In Vivo Comparison of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconium Dioxide Inlays.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
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
New technologies are changing the therapeutical options to do indirect restorations and new adhesive systems are continuously introduced to be used by clinicians. Different interactions between restorations, adhesive systems components, enamel and dentin require having criteria based on the selection of the adhesive system, ensuring the longevity of the restorations and the preservation of the biological remnant. The adhesion force to the dental tissue is one of the indicatives of the behavior of the adhesive systems and influences the behavior of the treatments with direct and indirect restorations. The objective of this search was to find the adhesive systems with the best results in terms of the adhesion strength of indirect restorations on the dental tissues. The search was conducted in two MEDLINE digital databases (PubMed), and the Cochrane Library with a search strategy based on the combination of MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) keywords. This systematic review used the PRISMA guide (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis). According to this review, the 3-step adhesive systems were the best performing and still are the gold standard for the cementing of indirect restorations. In addition, it can be concluded that self-etched adhesive systems reduce the time spent in clinical practice, however at the interface level they behave as permeable membranes more susceptible to degradation.
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.