ArticleCureus2024
Impact of Substrate Material, Esthetic Material Thickness, and Cement on Color Reproduction in Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations.
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.
- Multifactorial Evaluation of Color Changes in Material Assemblies Used for Hybrid Abutment Crowns: Role of Ceramics, Surface Treatments, and Resin Cements.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Effect of opaque porcelain on color and aesthetic outcomes of titanium-abutment implant restorations.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the impact of substrate material, esthetic material type and thickness, and cement shade on the final color reproduction of implant-supported fixed restorations. The goal was to identify optimal combinations for achieving clinically acceptable esthetic outcomes. Material and methods An in vitro study was conducted using four substrate materials, hybrid polyetherketoneketone (PEEK)-based ceramic-reinforced polymer (BioHPP), chromium-cobalt alloy (CrCo), grade 5 titanium (Ti), and white zirconium oxide ceramic (WZirCAD), and three esthetic materials, lithium disilicate ceramic (e.max CAD), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), and zirconia oxide ceramic (e.max ZirCAD), at five different thicknesses (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 mm). Color differences (ΔE*) were measured using a spectrophotometer, both with and without cement application. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Bonferroni correction to assess the effects of material combinations on color reproduction. Results The study found that a 1 mm thickness of e.max CAD on BioHPP and CrCo substrates provided the best color matching, with ΔE* values closest to clinical acceptability. PMMA showed higher ΔE* values, indicating lower color stability compared to e.max CAD and e.max ZirCAD. Cement shade had a near-significant influence on final color perception, particularly with e.max ZirCAD on CrCo substrates. Conclusions The study suggests that using e.max CAD at 1 mm thickness on BioHPP or CrCo substrates provides superior esthetic results, underscoring the need for careful material selection in clinical practice. Further in vivo research is recommended to validate these findings and explore long-term outcomes.
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.