ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026
Assessing the solubility of three resin-based luting cements in artificial saliva.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The present study aimed to assess and compare the solubility of three resin-based luting cements in artificial saliva under varying pH conditions. Methodology: This in-vitro experimental study was conducted at the College of Dentistry, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia, over a period of two months. A total of 45 disc-shaped specimens (8mm diameter, 4mm thickness) were prepared using cylindrical molds: 15 each of Self-Adhesive Methacrylate-Based Resin Cement (Non-MDP), Self-Adhesive MDP-Based Resin Cement, and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement. The specimens were light-cured for 40 seconds using an LED curing unit (450 mW/cm²) and finished with Sof-Lex discs. Each group was further subdivided, with five specimens immersed in artificial saliva at pH 3.4, pH 6.7, and distilled water at pH 7.0, respectively, for four weeks. Solubility was determined by calculating the mass loss of each specimen after immersion in the test solutions for four weeks. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post-hoc test were applied for group comparisons at a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: The solubility of all three cements was significantly higher in acidic artificial saliva (pH 3.4), with Self-Adhesive MDP-Based Resin Cement demonstrating the lowest solubility (0.022 ± 0.010 mg/mm³), and both Self-Adhesive Methacrylate-Based Resin Cement (Non-MDP) and RMGIC showing similarly high solubility values (0.08 ± 0.021 mg/mm³ and 0.08 ± 0.005 mg/mm³, respectively). No significant difference was observed among the groups at pH 6.7 and pH 7.0. Conclusion: The solubility of resin-based luting cements is influenced by pH, with significantly greater degradation under acidic conditions. Self-Adhesive MDP-Based Resin Cement exhibited superior resistance, making it more suitable for low pH environments.
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.