ArticleOdontology2026
Effect of resin-matrix and leucite-reinforced glass ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials with different thicknesses on the time-dependent surface microhardness of resin-based luting materials.
Article in Odontology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the time-dependent surface microhardness of different resin-based luting materials beneath CAD/CAM restorative materials of varying types (resin-matrix ceramic-RMC and leucite-reinforced glass ceramic-LRGC) and thicknesses (1 mm and 2 mm) as an indirect indicator of their polymerization behavior. A RMC(Cerasmart 270, GC) and a LRGC (Initial LRF, GC) CAD/CAM ceramic were used. Four luting materials (light-cured/LC, dual-cured/DC, self-adhesive resin cements/SC, and a flowable composite resin/FCR) were evaluated. Specimens (n = 10 per group) were polymerized under no restoration (control), 1 mm and 2 mm thick CAD/CAM materials using an LED curing unit (0 mm distance). Top and bottom surface microhardness values were measured at 1 h, 24 h, 7 days, and 30 days. Data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical tests. Restorative material type, thickness, luting material, and time significantly influenced microhardness values (p < 0.05). Increasing restorative thickness resulted in reduced microhardness values, particularly in LC. LC consistently exhibited bottom/top ratios below the 0.80 threshold under all conditions, whereas DC and FCR maintained values above this threshold. RMC materials yielded higher microhardness values compared to LRGC. Time-dependent increases in microhardness were observed, particularly in DC and SC systems. The microhardness of resin-based luting materials beneath CAD/CAM restorations is influenced by the combined effects of restorative material type, thickness, luting material, and time. Increasing restorative thickness reduced microhardness values, particularly in LC materials, whereas time-dependent increases were most evident in DC and SC materials. Not applicable. This study is a laboratory-based investigation and does not involve a clinical trial. Therefore, no clinical trial number has been assigned.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474923What 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.