ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Different Designs of All-Resin Post and Core Systems: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Failure Patterns Among All-Resin Post and Core Designs: In vitro Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Article
- Correlation Between Homogeneity of Different Composite Resins and Their Adhesion to Glass Fiber Posts: In Vitro Assessment.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Evaluation of microleakage across different post-core systems in the endodontic-periodontal interface.Bioinformation · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction There is a growing demand for post and core systems that offer both ease of use and efficiency. Recently introduced dual-cure build-up and post cement materials exhibit properties similar to dentin. The objective of this laboratory experiment is to compare the fracture resistance among three distinct post and core systems and identify the locations of failures within each group. Material and methods This in vitro experimental study involved 30 epoxy resin-based blocks (Endo Training Bloc J, Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland) divided into three groups: The first group was a post space preparation and restoration with a fiber post (RelyX™ Fiber Post, 3M ESPE, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States) 1.6 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length (Group A) where core build-up and cementation were performed using a dual-cure build-up and cement for endodontic post resin material (Core X Flow, Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany). The second group was a post space preparation and restoration using a dual-cure build-up and cement for endodontic post resin material, 10 mm in length filled with resin but without fiber post placement (Group B). The third group was where post space and core were filled and restored with a dual-cure build-up and cement for endodontic post resin material, 5 mm in length and without fiber post placement (Group C). Subsequently, samples were mounted and tested using a universal testing machine (Instron, Canton, Massachusetts, United States), and the fracture site was located. Results Significant differences were identified among the three groups, indicating the impact of both post length and type on fracture resistance (p-value <0.05). Group B exhibited the highest mean compressive strength resistance and maximum load at 899.3330 (N), followed by Group C at 848.9690 (N) and Group A at 751.9620 (N). The predominant failures in the samples were core fractures or debonding of the core material. Conclusion All-resin posts demonstrated high fracture resistance, unlike fiber posts which displayed inferior fracture 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.