ArticleCureus2025
Clinical Performance of Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Veneers Cemented With Light-Cured Resin Cements: An Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of ceramic veneers cemented with two different cements, Variolink Esthetic LC (Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and Vitique (DMG, Hamburg, Germany), over a three-month period.
methodsSixty patients (49 females and 11 males; age range = 18-45 years; mean age = 34.93 ± 7.48 years) requiring ceramic veneer restorations on anterior teeth were divided into two groups based on the cement used: Variolink (n = 30) and Vitique (n = 30). All the veneers were fabricated using lithium disilicate with a thickness between 0.5 and 0.7 mm. Clinical evaluations were performed at one week (T1) and three months (T2) after placement using the modified plaque index (mPLI), modified bleeding index (mBI), color match between restored and adjacent teeth using spectrophotometry (VITA Easyshade V, VITA Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany), and the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.
resultsAt T1, 91.7% (n = 55) of cases showed no plaque (score 0), which improved to 96.7% (n = 58) at T2. Regarding the bleeding index, 95.0% of patients (n = 57) showed no bleeding (score 0) at T1, which improved to 98.3% (n = 59) at T2. The color difference (ΔE) between the restored and adjacent teeth at T1 was 2.13 ± 2.17 for Variolink and 1.91 ± 1.79 for Vitique (p = 0.673), with similar values at T2 (2.30 ± 1.42 and 2.22 ± 1.54, respectively; p = 0.751). Central incisors showed significantly better color match (ΔE = 2.10 ± 1.92) than lateral incisors (ΔE = 2.62 ± 2.08) at T2 (p = 0.04). Regarding marginal adaptation, most restorations showed perfect adaptation or minor discrepancies. Marginal discoloration was minimal.
conclusionThis study demonstrated the excellent short-term performance of Variolink and Vitique. Both cement systems provided good marginal adaptation, color stability, and biocompatibility, with no significant differences between them.
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.