ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2023
Microleakage in indirect onlay restorations cemented with three different types of adhesives: An
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of optical impression, timing of dentin sealing application and cavity design optimization on microleakage of ceramic onlays: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- In Vitro Techniques for Microleakage Evaluation of Coronary Restorative Materials: A Scoping and Mapping Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Microtensile Bond Strength and Failure Mode of Different Universal Adhesives on Human Dentin.International dental journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the Material and Methods: In the present in vitro experimental study, a total of 54 human premolar teeth were prepared and divided into three equal groups (n = 18) for placement of onlay-type restorations cemented with A: Allcem™ dual-cure adhesive cement), B: RelyX™U200 dual-cure self-adhesive cement and C: RelyX™ Ultimate universal adhesive cement. All restorations were subjected to 10,000 thermocycles between 5°C and 55°C and immersed in a 1M silver nitrate solution for 6 hours. The crowns were then sectioned mesiodistally and observed under a stereo microscope to determine the degree of marginal microleakage in the cervical area. Results: The onlay restorations cemented with RelyX Ultimate did not present microleakage in the majority of cases (77.8%). Restorations cemented with RelyX U200 showed predominantly microleakage up to the pulp floor in 83.3% of the total, being this significantly higher microleakage than in restorations cemented with RelyX Ultimate and Allcem Dual ( Conclusions: Allcem dual adhesive cement and RelyX Ultimate universal adhesive showed significantly less microleakage than RelyX U200 dual-curing self-adhesive cement at the cervical level, with predominantly no microleakage and microleakage down to the enamel, respectively. The use of RelyX Ultimate cement in indirect restorations is recommended as it showed better marginal adaptation.
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.