ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Effectiveness of Different Luting Agents on Retention of Implant-Supported Crowns.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Dental implantology, a pivotal aspect of restorative dentistry, has seen significant advancements, including the widespread use of implant-supported crowns. The choice of luting agent in these restorations plays a crucial role in determining their long-term success. Therefore, this study aimed to comprehensively investigate and compare the effectiveness of different luting agents. Methodology: In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, sixty participants requiring single-tooth implant-supported crowns were randomly assigned to three groups: resin-based, glass ionomer, and zinc oxide-eugenol. Rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and the study adhered to standardized protocols for crown placement and luting agent application. Clinical assessments, radiographic analysis, and patient-reported outcomes were systematically collected at baseline, post-implant placement, and during follow-up visits. Results: Findings revealed no statistically significant differences in retention values among the luting agent groups (Resin-Based: 5.40 mm, Glass Ionomer: 5.15 mm, Zinc Oxide-Eugenol: 5.30 mm; Conclusion: The study provides compelling evidence that the choice of luting agent does not significantly influence the retention and overall clinical performance of implant-supported crowns. Practitioners can, therefore, exercise flexibility in selecting luting agents based on clinical preferences without compromising key 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.