ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Effectiveness of Self-Adhesive Resin Luting Cement in CAD-CAM Blocks-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Chairside and Restorative Dental Materials: A Systematic Review of Material Properties, Adhesive Strategies, and Long-Term Performance.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Functional Adhesives for a Restorative Future.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- A Multimodal Assessment of a New Self-Adhering Flowable Composite: Dental Pulp Stem Cell Viability and Bond Strength.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the degree of conversion of luting materials beneath hybrid ceramic CAD/CAM substrates of different thicknesses.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Bond strength and void formation of self-adhesive resin cement with polyethylene fiber posts in the root canal systems.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Novelty of digital press stereolithography (DPS) with MIDAS system in crown fabrication: marginal and internal fit evaluation.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- An In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Ceramic Material, Surface Treatment, and Adhesive Cement on Shear Bond Strength in Prosthodontics.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Effect of Different Luting Methods on the Microtensile Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Resin Blocks.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Shear Bond Strength of Simulated Single-Retainer Resin-Bonded Bridges Made of Four CAD/CAM Materials for Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis Rehabilitation.European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Dental Resin-Based Luting Materials-Review.Polymers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Self-adhesive resin cements (SARCs) are used because of their mechanical properties, ease of cementation protocols, and lack of requirements for acid conditioning or adhesive systems. SARCs are generally dual-cured, photoactivated, and self-cured, with a slight increase in acidic pH, allowing self-adhesiveness and increasing resistance to hydrolysis. This systematic review assessed the adhesive strength of SARC systems luted to different substrates and computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic blocks. The PubMed/MedLine and Science Direct databases were searched using the Boolean formula [((dental or tooth) AND (self-adhesive) AND (luting or cement) AND CAD-CAM) NOT (endodontics or implants)]. Of the 199 articles obtained, 31 were selected for the quality assessment. Lava Ultimate (resin matrix filled with nanoceramic) and Vita Enamic (polymer-infiltrated ceramic) blocks were the most tested. Rely X Unicem 2 was the most tested resin cement, followed by Rely X Unicem > Ultimate > U200, and μTBS was the test most used. The meta-analysis confirmed the substrate-dependent adhesive strength of SARCs, with significant differences between them and between SARCs and conventional resin-based adhesive cement (α < 0.05). SARCs are promising. However, one must be aware of the differences in the adhesive strengths. An appropriate combination of materials must be considered to improve the durability and stability of restorations.
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.