ArticleOdontology2024
Fracture strength of endocrowns after thermomechanical aging.
Article in Odontology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Dental CAD-CAM Resin Composite Thickness on the Polymerization Behavior of Dual-Cure Resin Cements for Endocrown Restoration.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effect of Pulpal Base, Restorative Material, and Preparation Type on Marginal and Internal Fit and Fracture Strength of Endocrowns.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biomechanical Behaviors of Molars Restored with Endocrowns Composed of Different Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the fracture strength (FS; N) of composite, feldspathic, and glass-ceramic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) endocrowns after thermomechanical aging. Seventy non-carious human molars were randomly divided into seven groups, according to the CAD/CAM material used for endocrown fabrication. Intact molars without cavity preparations were used as control (n = 10). Following endodontic treatment, standardized endocrown cavities were prepared and endocrowns were fabricated using composite (Cerasmart270, CS and Grandio Blocs, GB), fired and milled zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Celtra Duo, CD), leucite-reinforced feldspar ceramic (LRF Initial, LRF), and feldspathic (Cerec Blocks, CE) materials which were luted with universal adhesive (Futurabond U; Voco) and dual-cure resin cement (Bifix QM). Following thermocycling for 20,000 cycles and 480,000 load cycles in a chewing simulator (CS-4.2, SD Mechatronik), FS was evaluated (Instron). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's tests (p < 0.05). FS was significantly influenced by the tested material (p = 0.00). CS had the highest FS, which was not significantly different from intact molars and fired CD (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in FS between LRF, GB, and CD, which were significantly higher than CE. Most of the failure modes of CS, CD, and GB were repairable, whereas those of CE were irreparable. All the tested materials withstood clinically relevant axial forces. Composite endocrowns exhibited more favorable fracture pattern, whereas feldspathic and leucite-reinforced feldspar ceramic endocrowns exhibited mostly irreparable fractures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38289451What 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.