ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2023
In Vitro Evaluation of Lithium Disilicate Endocrowns and Post and Core Crowns-A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Comparative Analysis of Marginal Adaptation Values between Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramics and Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Endocrowns: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical Performance of Endocrowns in Molars: A Scoping Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Effects of the Presence of Adjacent Tooth and Material Type on the Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Endocrowns Fabricated by the Digital Impression Technique.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Chinese dentists' restorative preferences and choices for endodontically treated teeth: a representative survey.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Effect of margin designs and loading conditions on the stress distribution of endocrowns: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the results of the studies that have compared the physical and mechanical properties of lithium disilicate (LDS) endocrowns constructed for posterior teeth to those retained by post-and-core retention systems. The review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The electronic search process was conducted on PubMed-Medline, Scopus, Embase and ISI Web of Knowledge (WoS) from the earliest available date till 31 January 2023. Additionally, the studies were assessed for their overall quality and risk of bias using the Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies (the QUIN). The initial search resulted in 291 articles, out of which, only 10 studies met the eligibility criteria. In all studies LDS endocrowns were compared with various kinds of endodontic posts and crowns made from other materials. There were no definite pattern or trends observed in the fracture strengths of tested specimens. There was no predilection observed in failure patters among the experimental specimens. No predilection was observed in the fracture strengths of LDS endocrowns when compared to post-and-core crowns. Furthermore, no differences in failure patterns could be observed when both types of restorations were compared. The authors propose standardized testing of endocrowns against post-and-core crowns in future studies. In conclusion, long-term clinical trials are advocated to compare the survival, failure and complication rates of LDS endocrowns and post-and-core restorations.
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.