ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Fracture resistance of CAD/CAM endocrowns made from different materials in maxillary premolar interproximal defects.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Acidic Exposure on Surface Properties and Bacterial Adhesion of Three Resin-Based CAD/CAM Materials.Polymers · 2026Article
- Hardness and mass changes from acidic challenges to CAD/CAM fiber-reinforced resin composites.Odontology · 2026Article
- Effect of Dental CAD-CAM Resin Composite Thickness on the Polymerization Behavior of Dual-Cure Resin Cements for Endocrown Restoration.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis in vitro study aims to compare the fracture resistance of three CAD/CAM materials used in endocrown restoration of interproximal defects in maxillary premolars. MATERIALS AND
methods45 maxillary premolars extracted as part of orthodontic treatment were included. Following standardized root canal treatment, all teeth were prepared into Mesial-Occlusal (MO) cavity types. The samples were then randomly divided into three groups: LD [repaired with lithium disilicate glass ceramics (IPS e.max CAD)], VE [treated with polymer-infiltrated ceramics (Vita Enamic)], and LU [repaired with resin-based nanoceramics (Lava Ultimate)]. Axial static loading was applied using a universal testing machine at 1 mm/min until fracture, and fracture resistance and failure modes were recorded.
resultsRegarding Fracture Resistance Values (FRVs), the LD group exhibited significantly higher values than the other two groups, VE (P = 0.028) and LU (P = 0.005), which showed no significant difference (P = 0.778). On the other hand, regarding failure modes, the LD group had a higher prevalence of irreparable fractures compared to the other two groups, VE (P < 0.001) and LU (P < 0.001), which showed no significant difference.
conclusionsAlthough lithium disilicate glass ceramics exhibited higher FRVs, they had a lower repair probability. In contrast, polymer-infiltrated ceramics and resin-based nanoceramics contributed to tooth structure preservation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For maxillary premolars with interproximal defects following root canal treatment, resin ceramic composites are recommended for restoration to enhance abutment teeth protection.
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.