ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
A Comparison of Various Cementation Methods for the Retention of Prefabricated Posts: An Original Research.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate and compare the retention strengths of prefabricated posts cemented using zinc phosphate (ZP), glass ionomer (GIC), and resin cements (RC). Methodology: About 60 extracted human mandibular premolars were decoronated to a standardized length and endodontically treated. Post spaces were prepared to a depth of 10 mm, were grouped into 20 each. Prefabricated metal posts were cemented according to the manufacturers' instructions. Tensile forces until post dislodgment were measured after one day. Results: Mean retention strengths were: Group A (ZP)-124 N, Group B (GIC)-336.86 N, and Group C (RC)-1262.51 N. RC exhibited significantly higher retention than both GIC and ZP cements, and GIC cement showed significantly higher retention than ZP cement. Conclusion: The type of luting cement significantly affects the retention of prefabricated posts. RC demonstrated the highest retention strength, suggesting its superiority for clinical applications requiring enhanced post-retention.
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.