ArticleCureus2024
A Comparative Evaluation of the Bonding Strength, Marginal Adaptation, and Microleakage of Dental Cements in Prosthodontics: An In Vitro Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Cement Type on the Fracture Resistance of CAD-CAM Resin-Matrix Ceramic Anterior Crowns.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Four-Year Outcomes of Anterior Pressed Lithium Disilicate Veneers Fabricated from 3D-Printed Burn-Out Patterns: A Clinical Case Report.Dentistry journal · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary function of dental cement is to seal and support prosthodontic restorative materials. Proper selection of the dental cement contributes to the clinical success of the restoration.
methodsA total of 166 molar tooth samples were prepared to simulate the type of tooth commonly found in prosthodontic practice. Each sample was restored using one of the tested dental cement materials employing a prestabilized methodology. The performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (GC Fuji PLUS Capsule, GC America, Alsip, IL), zinc phosphate cement (ZPC) (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC), and resin cement (RC) (RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE, Saint Paul, MN) in bonding strength, marginal adaptation, and microleakage was evaluated and compared. The bonding strength, marginal adaptation, and microgroove were tested using specific established methodologies. The outcomes were then analyzed using statistical analyses for means and standard deviations to compare different types of dental cement.
resultsThe total outcome shows that the highest bonding strength with the highest mean was the resin cement, rating 24.8 MPa, followed by RMGIC and ZPC at 20.5 and 18.9 MPa, respectively. The marginal adaptation scores indicate that RC had the highest score at a mean of 4, followed by ZPC at 3.2 and RMGIC at 2.5. The dye penetration measurements in millimeters revealed that ZPC had a penetration of 0.31 mm, RMGIC had a penetration of 0.25 mm, and RC had the least penetration at 0.20 mm. The results of the statistical data analysis show significant differences between the dental cements in bonding strength and marginal adaptation.
conclusionIn conclusion, resin cement demonstrated superior performance in bonding strength, marginal adaptation, and resistance to microleakage compared to RMGIC and zinc phosphate cement. These findings highlight the importance of selecting resin cement for achieving optimal clinical outcomes in prosthodontic 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.