ArticleBMC oral health2023
Effects of different removal methods of excess resin adhesive on the microleakage of alumina all-ceramic crowns.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing anti-inflammatory mineral trioxide aggregate as dental implant crown cement to reduce peri-implantitis incidence.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicroleakage is a common problem that affects the quality and longevity of all-ceramic crowns. It is influenced by factors such as the resin cement, crown margin design and curing technique. However, few studies focus on the effect of different methods of removing excess resin adhesive on the microleakage of all-ceramic crowns. This study aimed to compare two methods of removing excess resin adhesive (the small brush and sickle methods) on the microleakage of all-ceramic crowns with different marginal clearances.
methodsForty extracted third molars were prepared with a 90° shoulder margin and randomly divided into four groups according to their marginal lift (30, 60, 90 or 0 μm). Procera alumina crowns were fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided modelling and cemented onto the teeth with 3 M RelyX Unicem (3 M Company, United States) resin cement. Excess resin cement was removed by either the small brush or the sickle scalpel method. The marginal adaptation was observed with a digital microscope. After thermal cycling of the teeth, microleakage was assessed using the dye penetration test under a stereomicroscope. The Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis H test were used to compare the microleakage scores among different groups.
resultsThe small-brush group showed significantly better marginal adaptation and lower microleakage scores than the sickle group (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the microleakage score (grade 0) among different marginal clearances within each group (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe small-brush method was more effective than the sickle scalpel method in reducing the microleakage of all-ceramic crowns with different marginal clearances. This method can improve the marginal adaptation and sealability of all-ceramic crowns, thus preventing secondary caries and other complications.
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.