ArticleBMC oral health2022
Comparison of retention and fracture load of endocrowns made from zirconia and zirconium lithium silicate after aging: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramic in Digital Dentistry: A Comprehensive Literature Review of Our Current Understanding.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Biomechanical Behaviors of Molars Restored with Endocrowns Composed of Different Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of fracture toughness between zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics: AnBioinformation · 2025Article
- Application of one-piece endodontic crowns fabricated with CAD-CAM system to molars.The Japanese dental science review · 2024Review
- Advanced Material Strategy for Restoring Damaged Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Comprehensive Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Influence of Ferrule Design and Pulpal Extensions on the Accuracy of Fit and the Fracture Resistance of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Endocrowns.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Students' Proficiency in Removing Gutta-Percha Prior to Fiber Post Placement: A Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Impact of CAD/CAM Material Thickness and Translucency on the Polymerization of Dual-Cure Resin Cement in Endocrowns.Polymers · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of endocrown fracture resistance and marginal adaptation: CAD/CAM technology using lithium disilicate vs. zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Review
- Translucent Zirconia in Fixed Prosthodontics-An Integrative Overview.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Biomechanical Assessment of Endodontically Treated Molars Restored by Endocrowns Made from Different CAD/CAM Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare retention and fracture load in endocrowns made from translucent zirconia and zirconium lithium silicate.
methodsFifty-six intact human maxillary molars after being mounted in acrylic resin, were scanned to acquire biogeneric copies. Specimens underwent standard endodontic treatment and were prepared for endocrown up to 2 mm above the cementoenamel junction. The specimens were randomly divided into two groups of 28, and endocrowns were designed using biogeneric copies and milled from high-translucent zirconia disks (Zr) and zirconium lithium silicate blocks (ZLS). After cementation with dual-cure resin cement, all the specimens underwent thermomechanical aging, and pull-out retention test and compressive test were conducted (14 specimens were used for each test in each group, n = 14), and failure modes in both tests were evaluated.
resultsIndependent samples t-test showed significant difference between the retention of Zr (271.5 N ± 114.31) and ZLS (654.67 N ± 223.17) groups (p value = 0.012). Compressive test results were also significantly different between Zr (7395.07 N ± 1947.42) and ZLS (1618.3 N ± 585) (p = 0.002). Failure mode of retention test was primarily adhesive failure at the cement-restoration interface in Zr group and cement-tooth interface in ZLS group. Failure modes of fracture test for Zr group were 7 non-restorable fractures and one restorable fracture while 6 specimens resisted compressive loads up to 8500 N without fracture. ZLS group showed 7 restorable and 7 non-restorable failures.
conclusionsZr endocrowns showed significantly lower retention and higher fracture strength. Both materials seem to be suitable for fabrication of endocrown in clinical setup.
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.