ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Post-cementation sensitivity of bridges cemented with different adhesive resin cements.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of Post-Cementation Sensitivity Between Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement as a Luting Material-A Randomized Clinical Trial.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Trial
- Article
- Post-Cementation Sensitivity of Zirconia Crowns: A Comparative Clinical Study of Glass Ionomer and Self-Adhesive Resin Cements.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Post-cementation sensitivity remains a common clinical concern in fixed partial dentures (FPDs), with variations in adhesive resin cement formulations influencing patient discomfort and long-term success. This study aimed to compare post-cementation sensitivity in FPDs cemented with three different resin cements: self-adhesive resin cements, resin cement with a self-etch adhesive, and resin cement with an etch-and-rinse adhesive. Material and Methods: A total of 27 patients demanding the replacement of one missing posterior tooth with a FPD were selected for the study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups based on the type of cement used. The abutments, which were caries- and restoration-free, were prepared using standard techniques. In total, 68 abutment teeth were prepared across all patients, of which 65 were vital abutments. The FPDs were cemented using one of the following cements: Multilink Speed (MUS) (self-adhesive resin cement), Rely-X Unicem (RXU) (self-adhesive resin cement), Rely-X Ultimate & Single Bond Universal (RXUS) (self-etch adhesive mode), and Rely-X Ultimate & Single Bond Universal (RXUE) (etch-and-rinse mode). Sensitivity to cold water, air and biting was assessed pre-operatively as a control and post-operatively at 24 hours, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The data were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Sensitivity to cold decreased significantly for most cements within 2 to 6 weeks, although VAS scores for RXUE remained above the 30% level. RXUE also exhibited significantly higher sensitivity to biting compared to Multilink Speed (MUS), Rely-X Unicem (RXU), and Rely-X Ultimate in self-etch mode (RXUS). MUS showed no biting sensitivity, while RXU and RXUS displayed mean values below 5% at the 2-week mark. Conclusions: The use of self-adhesive resin cements (MUS and RXU) and the resin cement with self-etch adhesive (RXUS) resulted in significantly lower post-operative sensitivity compared to the resin cement with etch-and-rinse adhesive (RXUE) in FPDs. Clinical Application: When cementing FPDs, particularly in cases involving freshly cut dentin, it is advisable to use self-adhesive cements or resin cements with self-etch adhesive.
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.