ArticleCureus2026
Clinical Evaluation of the Marginal Adaptation of Metal-Ceramic and All-Ceramic Fixed Partial Dentures Using Different Luting Cements.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- The Effect of Different Types of Adhesive Systems on Marginal Integrity of Class II Resin Composite Restoration.The journal of adhesive 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Marginal adaptation is a key factor in the biological and mechanical success of fixed partial dentures (FPDs). This study aimed to clinically compare the marginal adaptation of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic FPDs cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and self-adhesive resin cement. Materials and methods This prospective clinical observational study included 60 patients who required three-unit posterior FPDs. The patients were allocated into two groups: metal-ceramic (n = 30) and all-ceramic (n = 30). Each group was subdivided according to the luting cement used: RMGIC or self-adhesive resin cement (n = 15 each). Standardized clinical and laboratory protocols were used. Marginal adaptation was assessed using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria immediately after cementation and at three months by calibrated, blinded examiners. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with significance set at p < 0.05. Results At baseline, all groups demonstrated a clinically ideal marginal adaptation, with a median USPHS score of 1. Mean baseline scores ranged from 0.73 to 1.00 across subgroups. At three months, metal-ceramic FPDs cemented with RMGIC showed the highest mean USPHS score (2.6 ± 0.51), indicating greater marginal discrepancy. All-ceramic FPDs cemented with self-adhesive resin cement demonstrated the lowest mean score (0.87 ± 0.83), followed by metal-ceramic FPDs with self-adhesive resin cement (1.73 ± 0.70). Intergroup comparisons showed significantly better marginal adaptation in all-ceramic restorations than in metal-ceramic restorations (p < 0.001). Cement type also significantly influenced the outcomes, with self-adhesive resin cement performing better than RMGIC (p < 0.001). No significant interaction was observed between the restoration type and cement type (p = 0.913). Conclusion All-ceramic FPDs demonstrated superior early marginal adaptation compared with metal-ceramic restorations. The use of self-adhesive resin cement resulted in improved marginal integrity irrespective of the restoration type.
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.