ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
Fracture resistance and biomechanical behavior of different access cavities of maxillary central incisors restored with different composite resins.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation of the Periodontal Ligament in Dental Materials Research: A CAD/CAM-Based Method for PDL Modeling.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the effect of three different access cavities on the tissue removal, deflection, fracture resistance, and stress distribution of extracted maxillary central incisors. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty human maxillary central incisors were randomly assigned in four experimental group (n = 10) including conservative access cavity "CAC," traditional access cavity "TAC," invasive access cavity "IAC," and without access cavity (control group). Cone-beam computed tomography "CBCT" scans were used to evaluate the tissue removal during the different access cavities. All specimens were restored with composite resin (Admira Fusion, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) and embedded in acrylic resin blocks after simulating the periodontal ligament using red wax, then the specimens were submitted to the deflection test applying a load of 250 N and to the load-to-fracture test after artificial aging in a mechanical cycling machine (150 N, 5 × 10
resultsCBCT scans showed a significant difference of worn tissues in CAC and TAC when compared to the IAC (P < 0.0001). In deflection test, CAC showed lower deformation values than the TAC and IAC. Load-to-fracture test presented no significant difference among the three experimental groups (P = 0.6901). 3D-FEA showed that the more conservative the access cavity, the higher the stress magnitude.
conclusionsCAC promote less worn tissue; however, this does not improve the stress distribution or fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary incisors. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should reconsider the pros and cons of the conservative access cavity.
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.