ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of the degree of conversion of luting materials beneath hybrid ceramic CAD/CAM substrates of different thicknesses.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study primarily aimed to evaluate the degree of conversion (DC) of dual-cure resin cements, flowable composites, and bulk-fill composites used for cementing hybrid ceramic CAD/CAM substrates of different thicknesses. Additionally, the optical properties of the substrates were assessed to support the interpretation of DC-related outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsHybrid ceramic CAD/CAM substrates (Cerasmart, GC) with three different thicknesses (1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, and 2.5 mm) were used to evaluate contrast ratio (CR), relative translucency (RTPab, RTP00), and opalescence (OP) using a spectrophotometer (VITA Easyshade Advance 4.0, Zahnfabrik) (N = 18, n = 6). Three different luting materials—dual-cure resin cement (Estecem II Plus, Tokuyama), flowable composite (Estelite Universal Flow, Tokuyama), and bulk-fill composite (Estelite Bulk-Fill Flow, Tokuyama)—were polymerized using a standardized setup to prepare a total of 63 specimens (n = 7 per group). All specimens were stored at 37 °C in the dark for 24 h. The degree of conversion (DC) was analyzed using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR). Optical data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test (p < 0.05), while the degree of conversion (DC) data, which did not follow a normal distribution, were analyzed using a robust ANOVA and Bonferroni pairwise comparisons.
resultsSubstrate thickness significantly affected the DC values of the luting materials (p < 0.001). At 1.5 mm and 2 mm substrate thicknesses, flowable composite cements exhibited significantly higher DC values than both dual-cure resin cement and bulk-fill composites (p < 0.001), while bulk-fill and dual-cure resin cements showed comparable DC values. In 2.5 mm substrates, the highest DC was obtained with the dual-cure resin cement, whereas flowable composites demonstrated the lowest DC. Regarding optical properties, RTPab, RTP00, and OP values decreased in all groups with increasing substrate thickness, while CR values increased accordingly.
conclusionThe DC of the luting material varied according to substrate thickness and luting material type. For specimens ≤ 2 mm thick, flowable and bulk-fill resin composites can be alternatives to dual-cure cements. Bulk-fill composites showed potential for less than 2.5-mm restorations due to their polymerization ability in deeper regions. However, further studies are required to investigate material-specific differences.
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.