Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
Biological interaction, esthetics, handling, and loss rate of temporary luting cements - a clinical single-blind randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate three temporary luting cements in terms of their restoration loss rates, biological interactions, esthetic properties, and handling characteristics. MATERIALS AND
methods75 adults requiring fixed prosthodontics voluntarily participated in a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. After preparation, temporary restorations were luted with a randomly selected temporary luting cement (either Provicol QM Plus (PQP), Bifix Temp (BT), or Provicol QM Aesthetic (PQA)). Clinical examinations were performed one to two weeks after cementation. The following criteria were evaluated: tooth vitality, percussion, hypersensitivity, gingival bleeding, odor formation, esthetics, cement handling, removability, cleanability, and retention loss. Antagonistic teeth served as controls. Statistical analysis was performed using the paired t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact test, where appropriate.
resultsThe overall loss rate of temporary restorations was 16.0%, showing no cement-specific differences. Postoperative hypersensitivity occurred in 8% of cases regardless of cement type. Esthetic impairment was reported by 31% of the PQP-fixed restorations, compared with 4.0% and 4.2% of the BT and PQA-bonded restorations. Cement application was reported to be easy in 100% of cases, excess removal in 88-96%, depending on the cement used.
conclusionsThe choice of luting material affects the esthetic appearance of a temporary restoration and should be considered, particularly in restorations in esthetically demanding areas. No significant differences between the cements were identified regarding biocompatibility, handling, and loss rate. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Translucent cements can help to reduce color interferences, resulting in a more appealing appearance of the temporary restoration.
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.