ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2024
Hybrid Ceramics Cementation Protocols: Scope Review.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2024. 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.
- Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM Resin-Matrix Ceramic Overlays and Full-Coverage Crowns for Maxillary Premolars.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored by lithium silicate-based and hybrid ceramic partial coverage restorations with different preparation designs: a scoping review.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Marginal Fit of Chairside CAD/CAM Ceramic Inlays: An In Vitro SEM Study.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
Background: Compared to high modulus repair materials such as zirconia and alumina, hybrid polymer-ceramic materials have lower stress concentrations in the tooth structure and bonding interface. The aim of this study is to evaluate viable cementation protocols through an integrative review and meta-analysis. Material and Methods: This systematic review was based on the PRISMA criteria. An electronic search was carried out in seven databases: Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Clinical Trials, Scopus, Cochrane, Periodicals of Capes. The following inclusion criteria were used: hybrid ceramics, surface treatment protocol and which union test was presented, discarding duplicate articles and studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria. The articles were analyzed and selected through the RayYan platform. Results: Of the 160 articles identified, 24 studies were included in this review. The materials used by the authors were the hybrid ceramics: Vita ENAMIC, LAVA ULTIMATE, Cerasmart, Shofu Block, and the possible surface treatment protocols presented involving the use of: HF, Alumina blasting with or without silica, Silane, Laser and adhesive. The tests were carried out at different times and concentrations of the analyzed materials. Conclusions: With the studies that were included in this review, it was possible to show that the corrosion made by HF continues to be the gold standard for the treatment of surfaces in hybrid ceramics.
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.