ArticleDentistry journal2023
Fracture Resistance of Repaired 5Y-PSZ Zirconia Crowns after Endodontic Access.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of endodontic access cavity preparation on the fracture resistance of CAD-CAM crowns.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Repair of monolithic zirconia restorations with different direct resin composites: effect on the fatigue bonding and mechanical performance.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Review
- Selective root canal retreatment of a maxillary first molar: a case report with a 9-year follow up.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2024Article
- Mechanical Behavior of Repaired Monolithic Crowns: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.Dentistry journal · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study analyzed the fracture load before and after a chewing simulation of zirconia crowns that were trepanned and repaired using composite resin. Overall, 3 groups with 15 5Y-PSZ crowns in each group were tested. For group A, the fracture load of the unmodified crowns was evaluated. For group B, the crowns were trepanned and repaired using composite resin, also followed by a fracture test. For group C, crowns were prepared like in group B but received thermomechanical cycling before the final fracture tests. Furthermore, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray microscopy (XRM) analysis were performed for group C. The mean fracture loads and standard deviation were 2260 N ± 410 N (group A), 1720 N ± 380 N (group B), and 1540 N ± 280 N (group C). Tukey-Kramer multiple comparisons showed a significant difference between groups A and B (
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.