ArticleScientific reports2024
Effect of crown seating methods on the remnant cement in the subgingival region of a cement-retained implant crown.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
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
This study aimed to investigate the effects of crown seating speed, crown seating force, quantity of cement used, and type of implant cement on the amount of remnant cement in the subgingival region (RCS) after cementation. Cement-retained implant crowns were cemented to titanium abutments using the following methods: four types of implant cement (TBN: TEMP BOND NE, NR: NEXUS RMGI, ME: MAXCEM ELITE, and U200: RELYX U200), three quantities of cement (0.02 ml, 0.04 ml, and 0.06 ml), three crown seating speeds (5 mm/s, 10 mm/s, and 15 mm/s), and two crown seating forces (25 N, 50 N). The surface area and length of the RCS were measured using a 3D intraoral scanner. The total RCS weight was measured using an analytical balance. The RCS increased significantly as the seating speed increased, the seating force increased, and the quantity of cement increased (p < 0.05). The RCS values were the highest for TBN, followed by U200, NR, and ME (p < 0.05). The lower seating speed, smaller quantity of cement used, and smaller seating force applied in cement-retained implant restorations minimized the RCS in cement-retained prostheses. The type of cement is a factor that determines the aspects of the RCS.
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.