ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Marginal Misfit Assessment in Common Restorative Materials for Cement-Retained Fixed Implant Prostheses: An In Vitro Comparative Study.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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.
- Marginal fit, internal adaptation, and thermocycling effects on the mechanical and optical properties of graphene CAD-CAM and zirconia crowns for primary molars: An in-vitro study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
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
objectivesTo assess the vertical discrepancy at the abutment-crown interface (ACI) for cement-retained crowns fabricated from three commonly used restorative materials across implants featuring external and internal connections. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 30 implants with external (EC) and internal (IC) connections were included in this study. Each implant received a prefabricated titanium abutment, which was randomly attached using the torque recommended by the respective manufacturers. Three types of restorative materials-metal-ceramic (MC), monolithic zirconia (MZ), and veneered zirconia (VZ)-were used to fabricate the crowns for each connection type and cemented to their respective abutments. Following 6000 cycles of thermal cycling between 5°C and 55°C, the vertical marginal misfit was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy. Data were statistically analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni post-hoc test and paired t-test.
resultsThe lowest marginal misfit was recorded for VZ restorations. Although the IC group showed lower mean misfit values compared to the EC group, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.980). Significant differences were found in the IC group between MZ and VZ (p = 0.016) and between MC and VZ (p = 0.035). Mean misfit values (µm) for each material were as follows: VZ = 18.7 (SD = 4.5), MZ = 42.2 (SD = 8.1), and MC = 39.9 (SD = 7.4).
conclusionsCement-retained veneered zirconia restorations demonstrated less vertical ACI misfit compared to metal-ceramic and monolithic zirconia restorations. The connection configuration did not influence the marginal misfit. All measured misfit values were below 50 µm.
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.