ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2025
Retention of CAD-CAM Implant-Supported Ceramic Restorations Luted to Titanium Bases: A Systematic Review of in-vitro Studies.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tensile Retention of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Crowns Cemented to One-Piece Zirconia Implants: A Pilot In Vitro Study of Cementation Protocol, Resin Cement, and Micro-CT Cement Morphology.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of cold atmospheric pressure plasma on wettability of implant prosthetic materials: an in-vitro study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026Article
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
This review aimed to compare the results of laboratory studies performed on adhesion methods of CAD-CAM implant-supported ceramic restorations to titanium-bases to analyze the factors that could affect this bond strength. The review was directed according to the guidelines delineated in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Three databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were investigated to identify related in vitro studies that mimicked clinical settings and published in international peer-reviewed journals between January 2000 and September 2024. The search yielded 5191 records; of these, 51 full-text articles were evaluated based on eligibility criteria. Ultimately, 31 studies were included. Different factors were assessed as possible influencers on ceramic/Ti-base bonding stability and strength. These include Ti-base height, different mechanical and chemical surface pretreatments of bonding surfaces, ceramic restoration material, luting system, and others. Ti-base abutment height is an important factor and thus it is recommended to use adequate Ti-base abutment height, whereas 3-mm-height should be used cautiously in posterior region. Combination of mechanical and chemical pretreatments of both bonding surfaces seems to enhance the bond strength; however, smooth Ti-bases rather than micro-grooved ones most likely benefit from sandblasting pretreatment. While the type of resin bonding system may affect the bonding performance, the interaction of some cements with definite ceramic materials could enhance the bond strength. The clinician must consider all those factors to have an effective bonding.
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.