ArticleBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2026
Evaluation of two cementation protocols for lithium disilicate crowns on zirconia one-piece implants: a micro-CT analysis of cement thickness, porosity, and excess.
Article in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the influence of two cementation protocols on lithium disilicate crowns cemented to zirconia one-piece implants by analyzing cement thickness, porosity, and excess cement using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Materials and methods: Sixteen Computer-Aided Design (CAD)/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM)-fabricated lithium disilicate crowns were cemented onto zirconia one-piece implants (WhiteSKY, Bredent) using two resin-based cements: an adhesive resin cement (ARC) and a self-adhesive resin cement (SARC) based on multifunctional phosphoric methacrylates.Each cement was applied with either a conventional apical-half (AH) or an abutment-assisted apical-half protocol (A-AH), creating four groups ( Results: The ARC showed lower porosity and more uniform cement layers than the SARC. The A-AH technique significantly reduced excess cement in both cements, particularly with the self-adhesive resin type. All groups exceeded the 50 µm digital cement space, with the self-adhesive A-AH group showing the highest thickness. Conical abutment geometry contributed to localized cement accumulations. Conclusions: Both the cement type and the application protocol appeared to influence the characteristics of the cement interface. In this study, the ARC tended to produce a more uniform and less porous cement layer, whereas the abutment-assisted protocol was associated with reduced amounts of excess cement. These findings suggest that modifications to the cementation protocol may help to optimize outcomes for zirconia one-piece implant restorations, particularly when using self-adhesive resin systems.
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.