ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Survival of Prosthodontic Restorations Luted with Resin-Based versus Composite-Based Cements: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bond strength of flowable dental composites in the cementation of indirect restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Functional Adhesives for a Restorative Future.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical performance, survival, and complications of indirect composite inlays, onlays, and overlays on posterior teeth. Digital records of 282 patients treated between 2014 and 2018 were accessed and analyzed retrospectively. The included patients received 469 composite restorations luted with seven different resin-based types of cement, i.e., Filtek Ultimate Flow, Enamel Plus, Relyx Ultimate, Harvard Premium Flow, Relyx Unicem, Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable, and Filtek Ultimate. The restorations had been clinically and radiographically evaluated annually. The mechanical and clinical complications, e.g., debonding, fracture, and secondary caries, were evaluated and recorded. The examined restorations exhibited a high survival rate (84.9%), and failure was found in only 71 cases. Fracture was the most common cause (n = 36), followed by prosthetic work release (n = 19) and secondary caries (n = 16). There was a statistically significant difference between failure and cement material (Sig. < 0.001); the composite-based cements (87.2%) had a high survival rate compared to the resin-based cement (72.7%). Similarly, the cements with high viscosity (90.2%) had significantly higher survival rates than the low-viscosity cements (78.9%). Moreover, onlays showed higher longevity compared to overlays (Sig. = 0.007), and patients aged under 55 years showed less complications (Sig. = 0.036). Indirect composite restoration was a successful solution to tooth structure loss. The material of the cementation is an important part of the success. Higher survival rate was found in our study when the fixation materials with high viscosity were used, thus suggesting using these materials with indirect restorations. Composite-based cements had significantly higher survival rate than resin-based cements.
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.