ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparative effects of two luting cements and different cement volumes on the post-cementation occlusal elevation and fit of zirconia crowns.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated the effects of two luting cements and different cement volumes on occlusal elevation and fit of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) zirconia crowns, providing reference for clinical cementation.
methods72 titanium dies models and zirconia crowns were fabricated, with laser-marked reference points on four axial surfaces. Specimens were randomly assigned to 6 groups and cemented using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) or self-adhesive resin cement (U200) at three volumes (full, 1/4, and 1/8). Occlusal elevation was recorded before and after cementation, while vertical marginal discrepancy (VMD), axial gap (AG), and occlusal gap (OG) were measured after cementation. Statistical analysis used one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post hoc and independent-samples t tests (two-sided α = 0.05; P < 0.05 significant).
resultsCementation increased occlusal elevation in all crowns. In both RMGIC and U200 groups, occlusal elevation decreased significantly with reduced cement volume (P < 0.001), with the smallest increase at 1/8 volume (RMGIC: 2.13 ± 0.38 μm; U200: 3.54 ± 0.47 μm). Sectioning further revealed that VMD, AG, and OG also decreased as cement volume was reduced. In RMGIC, significant reductions were observed for VMD at buccal (B), lingual (L), mesial (M), and distal (D) surfaces; AG at B, M, and D; and OG at the distal marginal ridge (P < 0.05). In U200, VMD decreased significantly at B, L, M, and D; AG at L and D; and OG at mesial and distal marginal ridges (P < 0.05). At the same cement volume, RMGIC showed significantly less occlusal elevation than U200 only at 1/8 volume (P < 0.001), while no significant differences were found between the two groups in VMD, IG, or OG at any measurement point (P > 0.05).
conclusionIn zirconia crown cementation, using 1/8 of the full cement volume resulted in the smallest occlusal elevation and the best overall crown fit. However, at the same cement volume, RMGIC showed less occlusal elevation than U200 only at 1/8 volume, while no significant differences in crown fit were observed between the two materials.
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.