ArticleBMC oral health2022
Evaluation of sealing efficacy and removal convenience of sealing materials for implant abutment screw access holes.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effect of Access Channel Sealing and Superstructure Material on Abutment-Implant Screw Stability After Cyclic Loading: A Comparative In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The effect of varying the position of implant screw access opening on the stress distribution of sealing composite resin: a 3D-FEA study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Novel Esthetic Technique for Restoring Dental Implant Access Holes: A Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing the Screw Stability of Implant-Supported Single Crowns: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Bacterial Flora in Screw-Fixed Superstructures with Different Sealing Materials: A Comparative Clinical Trial.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSealing materials are used to fill abutment screw access holes (SAH) to prevent microleakage and protect the central screws in oral implant restoration. However, thus far, no consensus has been reached on sealing material selection. In this study, a comparison of the sealing efficacy and removal convenience of different sealing materials for cement-retained implant restoration was conducted.
methodsVarious sealing materials were classified into five groups, namely, gutta-percha (GP), temporary restorative paste (TRP), vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape, and onlay resin (OR), and 35 sets of analog-abutments were allocated into five groups of seven specimens. A sealing efficacy test was conducted using a modified dye-penetration method, in which a lower absorbance indicated better sealing efficacy. For the removal-convenience test, the materials were removed from each SAH after solidification, and the retrieval time was recorded.
resultsOn days 1 and 10, PTFE exhibited the highest absorbance value with significant differences compared to the other groups. On day 30, TRP and PTFE showed significantly higher absorbance values than GP, VPS, and OR, but no significant difference was detected between TRP and PTFE (p = 0.424). The absorbance values of TRP and PTFE from days 1, 10, and 30 showed significant intragroup differences, while those of the other groups did not. In terms of the removal convenience on days 1, 10, and 30, VPS achieved the best performance, followed by PTFE, OR, TRP, and GP.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this experiment, VPS and OR showed better sealing efficacy against microleakage and a more convenient removal than the other materials; thus, VPS and OR are recommended for clinical use.
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.