ArticleBMC oral health2022
Retention strength of monolithic zirconia crowns cemented with different primer-cement systems.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of digitally fabricated partial coverage ceramic restorations using conventional impression and intraoral scanners.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of Tooth Abutment Height on Retention of CAD/CAM Monolithic Zirconia Crowns Cemented With Two Types of Cement: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Effect of Airborne Particle Abrasion and Nitric-Hydrofluoric Acid Etching on the Mechanical and Structural Properties of 3Y- and 5Y-TZP Zirconia.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Clinical Efficacy of Cemented Versus Screw-Retained Zirconia Single Crowns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
- Bonding Strategies for Zirconia Fixed Restorations: A Scoping Review of Surface Treatments, Cementation Protocols, and Long-Term Durability.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effect of different surface treatments on retention and fracture strength of zirconia crowns over Ti-base zirconia abutments.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Effect of ceramic materials and tooth preparation design on computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing endocrown adaptation and retentive strength: An in vitro study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
- Exploring Zirconia Adhesion: Pre and Postsintering Physical Surface Treatment, Chemical Treatment, and Cement Interactions.BioMed research international · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of different cement systems with different ceramic primers on the retention strength of zirconia crowns.
methodsThirty extracted molars were prepared with flat occlusal surfaces, 20 degrees taper, and 3 mm axial wall height. A zirconia crown with an occlusal bar was fabricated for each tooth. All specimens were divided (n = 10) into; Group M: Multilink Speed/Monobond N, Group P: Panavia V5/Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus, Group D: Duo-Link universal/Z-Prime Plus. The intaglio surfaces of crowns were air-abraded using 50 µm alumina at 2.5 bar for 10 s. Then each crown was cemented onto its corresponding tooth. All specimens were thermocycled for 10,000 cycles between 5 and 55 °C. Each crown was subjected to gradually increasing vertical load along the path of insertion through hooks engaging the occlusal bar using a universal testing machine until failure. The force at dislodgment was recorded and retention strength was calculated for each specimen. The failure modes were recorded for each specimen. The data were statistically analyzed using one way ANOVA test followed by Tukey HSD test (α = .05).
resultsGroup D showed lowest strength (1.42 ± 0.23 MPa) and differed significantly (P < .001) from Group M (2.71 ± 0.45 MPa) and Group P (2.47 ± 0.41 MPa). There was no significant difference (P = .34) between Group M and Group P. The failure modes for Groups M and Group P were mainly cohesive, while Group D showed adhesive failure.
conclusionsThe retention strength of zirconia crowns was improved with Multilink Speed and Panavia V5 cement systems, while the use of the Duo-Link Universal cement system only showed half of those retention strength values.
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.