ArticleBMC oral health2023
Effect of access cavities on the biomechanics of mandibular molars: a finite element analysis.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Finite Element Analysis in Cleft Lip Nasal Deformity: A Narrative Review from Biomechanical Insights to Clinical Translation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- How to adaptively balance 'classic' or 'conservative' approaches in tooth defect management: a 3D-finite element analysis study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of pericervical dentin reduction using three rotary file systems: A micro-computed tomography study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Structural response of mandibular first molars in the presence of proximal contacts: finite element analysis with antagonist teeth and alternative loading applications.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Article
- The Effect of Coronal Pre-flaring and Type of Root Canal Irrigation on Working Length Accuracy Using Electronic Apex Locators.F1000Research · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to predict the fracture resistance of a mandibular first molar (MFM) with diverse endodontic cavities using finite element analysis (FEA).
methodsFive experimental finite element models representing a natural tooth (NT) and 4 endodontically treated MFMs were generated. Treated MFM models were with a traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) and minimally invasive endodontic (MIE) cavities, including guided endodontic cavity (GEC), contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) and truss endodontic cavity (TREC). Three loads were applied, simulating a maximum bite force of 600 N (N) vertically and a normal masticatory force of 225 N vertically and laterally. The distributions of von Mises (VM) stress and maximum VM stress were calculated.
resultsThe maximum VM stresses of the NT model were the lowest under normal masticatory forces. In endodontically treated models, the distribution of VM stress in GEC model was the most similar to NT model. The maximum VM stresses of the GEC and CEC models under different forces were lower than those of TREC and TEC models. Under vertical loads, the maximum VM stresses of the TREC model were the highest, while under the lateral load, the maximum VM stress of the TEC model was the highest.
conclusionThe stress distribution of tooth with GEC was most like NT. Compared with TECs, GECs and CECs may better maintain fracture resistance, TRECs, however, may have a limited effect on maintenance of the tooth resistance.
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.