ArticleEuropean journal of oral sciences2026
Marginal adaptation and microleakage of resin-based composite provisional crowns fabricated by different techniques and materials.
Article in European journal of oral 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal adaptation and microleakage of resin-based composite provisional crowns fabricated using different techniques and materials and cemented with different temporary cements. One hundred twenty extracted molars prepared for zirconia crowns were allocated to three fabrication groups (n = 40): conventionally produced (CONV), computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing-milled (MILL), and three-dimensional-printed (PRNT). Each group was subdivided according to temporary cement type (n = 20): zinc oxide non-eugenol (ZONE) or dual-cure resin-based (DCRB) cement. Specimens underwent thermocycling for 500 (T1) (n = 10) or 5000 cycles (T2) (n = 10). Marginal adaptation was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (n = 5), whereas microleakage was assessed by methylene blue dye penetration (n = 5). Statistical analysis included two-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc test for marginal adaptation and Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's test for microleakage. PRNT and MILL crowns demonstrated smaller marginal gaps and lower microleakage scores than CONV crowns at both aging stages. DCRB cement produced smaller gaps and equal or lower leakage than ZONE across different material groups. All groups exhibited marginal discrepancies below the clinically acceptable limit of 120 µm. PRNT crowns cemented with DCRB demonstrated the most favorable marginal adaptation and sealing ability.
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.