ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2023
Biomechanics of anterior endocrowns with different designs and depths: Study of finite elements.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Anterior Endocrowns as An Alternative to Core Crown restorations: A Systematic Review.International dental journal · 2025Pooled it
- In-vitro comparison of fracture resistance and failure patterns of endocrowns versus post-and-core restorations in maxillary central incisors with and without ferrule.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Stress Distribution on Endodontically Treated Anterior Teeth Restored via Different Ceramic Materials with Varying Post Lengths Versus Endocrown-A 3D Finite Element Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To date, there is no clear consensus in the literature on which endocrown design and depth is the most effective treatment option for restoring endodontically treated maxillary central incisors. Aim: To determine the stress distribution of the anterior endocrowns by means of finite element analysis. Material and Methods: Nine 3D finite element models (groups A - I) were made, each one representing a restoration system of endodontically treated upper central incisors. The models were endocrowns with and without ferrules at 0, 1, 3, and 5 mm depth and a post-core stump control group. A static load of 100N of force was applied to the palatal face at 45º from the long axis of the tooth. The Von Mise values and the maximum stress in the crown, dentin and resin cementum were evaluated separately. Results: The maximum stress distribution was C < B < A < D < H < F < E < G < I and the Von Mises stresses were in the upper 1/3 of the retainer of endocrowns A, B, C and D. ; in the vestibular neck in endocrowns E and F; in the final 1/3 of the retainer in the endocrown G; in the middle 1/3 of the retainer in the H endocrown; and at the level of the vestibular neck of the crown in model I. Conclusions: The smallest distribution of maximum and Von Mises stresses was observed in model C.
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.