ReviewPolymers2025
Current Trends for Cementation in Prosthodontics: Part 1-The Substrate.
Review in Polymers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does Tooth Position Change Between Preparation and Cementation in Overlay Restoration? A Clinical Evaluation With/Out Interappointment Provisionalization.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Trial
- Functional Adhesives for a Restorative Future.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Mechanical Behaviour of Dental Luting Cements: Static, Dynamic, and Finite Element Studies.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Bonding Strategies for Zirconia Fixed Restorations: A Scoping Review of Surface Treatments, Cementation Protocols, and Long-Term Durability.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- An In Vitro Evaluation of the Effect of Ceramic Material, Surface Treatment, and Adhesive Cement on Shear Bond Strength in Prosthodontics.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the vast possibilities of restorative dentistry nowadays and the constant development and release of restorative materials with improved mechanical and esthetical properties, there is a growing body of research on adhesive systems and cementation materials, as well as the adequate choices thereof in everyday clinical practice. There are high demands from the dental cements with regard to their adhesion to various substrates and restorative materials, their mechanical properties, resistance to dissolution in the oral environment, esthetic considerations, etc. A material that meets all these requirements is not yet available, and each available material presents certain shortcomings. However, thanks to the advancements in dental material research, polymers-based cements have gained admirable mechanical and esthetic properties, as well as versatility. With the plethora of products available on the market, clinicians are often faced with difficulties in the choice of a material adequate for certain clinical situations. Indeed, important factors to consider are the substrate for cementation and the restoration material. The aim of this review was to provide clear and literature-based clinical recommendations for the adequate cementation of prosthodontic restorations with regard to the cementation substrate. Considering that there is no gold standard protocol applicable in all clinical cases, since the properties of the cementation abutment could substantially differ, important individual considerations must be made for each situation.
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.