ArticleCureus2023
Fracture Strength of Endocrowns Fabricated From Three Different Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Ceramic Materials: An In-Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Article
- Influence of crystallization and adhesive cementation on the fracture resistance of CAD/CAM advanced lithium disilicate and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics after thermocycling.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Influence of deep marginal elevation on the marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of zirconia endocrowns constructed on endodontically treated premolar teeth: in vitro study.The Saudi dental journal · 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
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEndocrown restorations have increased in popularity in recent years due to the advancement of both adhesive and restorative materials. The clinical success of endocrowns depends on several factors, including preparation design, material selection, fracture resistance, and marginal adaptation. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the fracture strength of endocrown restorations fabricated from three different computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) materials.
methodsThirty extracted mandibular first molars were selected. The teeth underwent conventional root canal treatment before being prepared for endocrown restoration. The teeth were allocated to three groups (
resultsThe one-way analysis of the variance test indicated a significant difference in the fracture strength between the different ceramic groups tested (
conclusionThe reported fracture strength values for all the tested materials were higher than the strength required to resist masticatory forces. Therefore, endocrowns fabricated using VITA Enamic, IPS e.max CAD, and VITA Suprinity CAD/CAM materials present restorations with a clinically acceptable fracture strength.
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.