ArticleOdontology2026
Influence of cement composition and scaler selection on dental cement removal and surface damage.
Article in Odontology, 2026. 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
Excess dental cement associated with the crown-to-abutment attachment process in dental implantation is a recognized risk factor for peri-implant disease. Despite this, there are no standardized guidelines for cement selection and application, which can result in considerable variability in the residual cement amount left undetected in tissues surrounding an implant. This study evaluates the amount of residual cement remaining on commercially pure titanium disks after the removal of four different dental cement compositions simulating clinical practices (bioceramic cement (BC) (Ceramir Bioceramic Implant Cement, Doxa Dental Inc., Uppsala, Sweden), zinc phosphate cement (ZP) (Fleck's, Mizzy, Cherry Hill, NJ), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (FujiCEM 2, GC, Tokyo, Japan), and self-adhesive resin cement (R) (RelyX Unicem 2 Clicker, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN)-using either plastic (graphite) or metallic (stainless steel) scalers. Through two-way ANOVA analysis, both scaler type (p-value < 0.001) and cement type (0.0099) were found independently to significantly influence the residual amount percentage. Overall, bioceramic dental cement combined with plastic scalers was observed to be the best method for balancing cement removal efficiency (13.1% residual cement) and surface preservation. Future studies should examine the impact of metallic and plastic scalers on surface integrity, oxide layer formation, and corrosion resistance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41051615What 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.