ArticleScientific reports2024
Microleakage of luting cements in CAD/CAM pediatric zirconia crowns: an in vitro study.
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 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.
- Marginal Fit, Internal Adaptation, and Microleakage of Preformed Metal Crowns: Impact of Three Preparation Techniques and Three Ion-Releasing Cements.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution in Pediatric Zirconia Crowns Luted With Four Different Cements.Cureus · 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
The durability of pediatric zirconia crowns for primary teeth is influenced by the choice of luting cement, with the effectiveness of the cement being directly correlated to its ability to reduce microleakage. This in vitro study aimed to assess and compare the microleakage of custom-made zirconia crowns (CZCs) and prefabricated zirconia crowns (PZCs) on primary maxillary incisors when luted with self-adhesive resin cement, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and bioactive cement. Sixty primary maxillary incisors were prepared and allocated into two groups, each corresponding to the two types of crowns. These groups were further divided into three subgroups each to test the different luting cements. Following the cementation process and thermocycling, the specimens were immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution for microleakage evaluation. The analysis involved sectioning the teeth and examining them under a stereomicroscope. Statistical analysis, using two-way ANOVA and post hoc Dunnett T3 tests (p < 0.05), revealed significant differences in microleakage among the cements. The study found that PZCs luted with RMGIC showed the highest level of microleakage, whereas those luted with bioactive cement exhibited the lowest, positioning bioactive cement as the preferable choice for minimizing microleakage. This finding illustrates the critical importance of selecting appropriate luting cements to optimize the clinical outcomes of zirconia crown restorations in pediatric dentistry, focusing on reducing microleakage to ensure the restoration's durability and success.
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.