ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Microleakage in 5Y-TZP zirconia ceramic crowns and the influence of deep margin elevation: a laboratory investigation.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effect of deep margin elevation (DME) on microleakage of 5Y-TZP ceramic crowns after thermomechanical loading. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty extracted molars were allocated to five groups (n = 8). Standardized mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) tooth preprations were performed in all teeth and restored using two adhesive systems (one-bottle or two-bottle) in combination with two foundation restoration materials (auto-polymerizing or dual-polymerizing). Thirty-two molars received DME, while eight served as a control without DME. Following standardized tooth preparation, 5Y-TZP zirconia crowns were fabricated and bonded using an auto-polymerizing luting resin. While the specimens were stored in water for 150 days, they were subjected to thermomechanical loading with 37,500 thermal cycles (5 °C/55°C) and 1,200,000 mechanical cycles at 98 N in a chewing simulator. After loading, the specimens were immersed in fuchsine dye for 48 h, sectioned sagittally, and evaluated for dye penetration under an optical microscope.
resultsSignificant differences in microleakage were observed at the foundation restoration margins. The dual-polymerizing foundation restoration material demonstrated significantly lower microleakage than the auto-polymerizing material. The one-bottle adhesive system performed significantly better than the two-bottle system. No microleakage was detected at the crown margin in any experimental group.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this laboratory study, the use of a dual-polymerizing foundation restoration material in combination with a one-bottle adhesive system showed favorable results for DME. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Compared with surgical crown lengthening or orthodontic extrusion, DME may reduce patient morbidity and treatment time. Clearfil DC Core, in particular, demonstrated low microleakage at DME margins, with the choice of adhesive system significantly influencing outcomes.
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.