ReviewInternational journal of dentistry2026
Clinical Efficacy of Cemented Versus Screw-Retained Zirconia Single Crowns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in International journal of dentistry, 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.
- Clinical Efficacy of Cemented Versus Screw-Retained Zirconia Single Crowns: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The choice between cemented and screw-retained zirconia single crowns remains a matter of debate, especially concerning long-term biological and prosthetic outcomes. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical and mechanical performance of cemented versus screw-retained zirconia single crowns. Methods: An extensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed until July 2025. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared cemented to screw-retained zirconia single crowns were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were marginal bone level (MBL) changes, bleeding on probing (BoP), and plaque index (PI). Secondary outcomes included probing depth (PD), modified PI (MPLI), width of keratinized (KT) mucosa, and mechanical complications (i.e., fracture and loosening). Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed with GRADE methods. Results: Nine RCTs involving 298 patients were included. Cemented zirconia single crowns probably result in a slight reduction in marginal bone loss compared with screw-retained crowns (mean difference [MD] = -0.04 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.08 to -0.00; Conclusion: Cemented zirconia single crowns may lead to slightly less marginal bone loss than screw-retained ones, but no meaningful differences were found in other biological or prosthetic complications. Current evidence remains limited, underscoring the need for well-designed, long-term RCTs to provide more definitive guidance.
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.