ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Adhesive Performance of Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Maryland Cantilever Restorations on Prepared and Non-Prepared Abutment Teeth: An In Vitro Comparative Study.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional Adhesives for a Restorative Future.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Minimally Invasive Cantilever RBFPD Using a 270-Degree Veneer Abutment in a Young Cleft Patient: A Clinical Adhesive Technique.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive management of lower midline diastema: A case report and literature review.Medicine · 2026Review
- Flexural Strength of Different Restorative Materials Used for Direct Restoration in Pediatric Dentistry: An In Vitro Study.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Digital Imaging Accuracy Among Three Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Color Stability and Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM and Chairside Provisional Restorations: An In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Biocompatibility of Denture Adhesives: Effects on Oral Tissues and Inflammatory Responses-Literature Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Comparative in Vitro Evaluation of Marginal Sealing in Class I Composite Restorations Using Fifth- and Seventh-Generation Adhesives.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate the adhesive performance of zirconia and lithium disilicate Maryland cantilever restorations on prepared and non-prepared anterior abutment teeth. While conventional clinical protocols involve abutment tooth preparation, no-preparation (no-prep) restorations have emerged as a viable, minimally invasive alternative. This study compared the adhesion fracture resistance (N) of zirconia restorations on non-prepared enamel surfaces with those on prepared surfaces exposing the dentin. Additionally, the zirconia restorations were compared with lithium disilicate Maryland cantilever restorations, a more common yet costly alternative. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty extracted anterior teeth were allocated into four groups based on preparation type (prepared vs. non-prepared) and material (zirconia vs. lithium disilicate). Each group received cantilevered single-unit FPDs fabricated via CAD/CAM and adhesively cemented using Variolink
resultsThe fracture resistance ranged from 190 to 447 N in the zirconia groups and from 219 to 412 N in the lithium disilicate groups. When comparing all the zirconia versus all the lithium disilicate ceramic restorations, regardless of tooth preparation, no statistically significant difference was found (
conclusionsBoth zirconia and lithium disilicate Maryland cantilever restorations demonstrated reliable adhesive performance when bonded using appropriate surface conditioning and adhesive protocols. Interestingly, the non-prepared designs exhibited higher fracture resistance than the prepared abutments, highlighting their potential advantage in minimally invasive restorative dentistry. Zirconia Maryland bridges, in particular, represent a cost-effective and mechanically resilient option for anterior single-tooth replacement.
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.