ArticleClinical oral implants research2026
Effect of Crown Design, Cement Type and Margin Depth on the Removal of Cement Remnants Around Single Implant-Supported Restorations. An In-Vitro Study.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the influence of crown design, cement type, and margin depth on the removal efficiency of residual cement around single implant-supported restorations.
methodsTwelve mandibular models with a missing first molar were fabricated and provided with single implant analogs (centrally/distally placed) and two different crown designs (non-cantilever/cantilever). Three of each design had either a superficial (SM = -1 mm) or a deep (DM = -2 mm) submucosal margin. Crown restorations were made from CAD/CAM titanium-base abutments and monolithic zirconia (n = 120). Three different cements (glass ionomer [GI], polycarboxylate [PC], dual-curing resin cement [RC]) were used in a standardized way for crown cementation. Ten dentists removed excess cement using metal scalers. The volumetric values of residual cement were calculated (mm
resultsThe overall analysis showed no significant differences in the volume of cement remnants between both crown designs (non-cantilever: 0.42 ± 0.96 mm
conclusionCrown margin depth emerged as the dominant factor influencing cement removal. Although cement type also affected residual cement, with glass ionomer showing lower values overall, crown design did not provide a consistent advantage.
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.