ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024
Evaluation of Retentive Strength of 50 Endodontically-Treated Single-Rooted Mandibular Second Premolars Restored with Cast Post Cores Using 5 Common Luting (Cement) Agents.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. 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.
- Impact of Margin Type and Material Choice on Stress Distribution in Endocrown Restorations: A 3D Finite Element Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND A luting agent is a dental cement used to secure a dental restoration. This study aimed to evaluate retentive strength of 50 endodontically-treated single-rooted mandibular second premolars (extracted) restored using 5 common luting (cement) agents. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifty single-rooted mandibular second premolars with adequate root length and uniform size/shape were decoronated. After completing endodontic biomechanical preparation and obturation, root canals of all specimens were prepared to receive a cast post core. Depending upon cementation type, CPC specimens were divided in 5 groups (10 each) (Gp): Zinc phosphate (Gp ZP), polycarboxylate (Gp PC), glass ionomer (Gp GI), resin-modified glass ionomer (Gp RGI), and resin cement (Gp RC). Retentive strength was determined using the adhesive failure pull-out test. Mean/standard deviations were calculated for tensile forces (in kilograms) and differences were determined using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multiple comparison was performed using the t test. A P value of ≤0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference. RESULTS The order of mean tensile strength from higher to lower was Gp RC (21.46) >Gp RGI (18.17) >Gp GI (16.07) >Gp ZP (15.33) >Gp PC (13.63). Differences in retentive strengths between the cements were significant (P≤0.05). Multiple-group comparisons showed that except for Gp ZP and Gp GI, all groups differed significantly from each other. CONCLUSIONS All investigated cements provided optimal retentive strengths, with wide differences between them. Resin cements should be used when CPC removal is not anticipated, while polycarboxylate or zinc phosphate should be used if CPC removal is anticipated.
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.