ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2020
A novel retentive type of dental implant prosthesis: marginal fitness of the cementless double crown type implant prosthesis evaluated by bacterial penetration and viability.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Carmofur Exhibits Antimicrobial Activity AgainstAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to compare the marginal fitness of two types of implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis, i.e., cementless fixation (CL.F) system and cement-retained type. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn each group, ten specimens were assessed. Each specimen comprised implant lab analog, titanium abutment fabricated with a 2-degree tapered axial wall, and zirconia crown. The crown of the CL.F system was retained by frictional force between abutment and relined composite resin. In the cement-retained type, zinc oxide eugenol cement was used to set crown and abutment. All specimens were sterilized with ethylene oxide, immersed in
resultsThe number of penetrating bacterial cells assessed by colony-forming units was approximately 33% lower in the CL.F system than in the cement-retained type (
conclusionThe CL.F system is more resistant to bacterial penetration into the abutment-crown interface than the cement-retained type, thereby indicating a precise marginal fit.
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.