ArticleBMC oral health2024
Fracture resistance and failure mode of three esthetic CAD-CAM post and core restorations.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Chairside and Restorative Dental Materials: A Systematic Review of Material Properties, Adhesive Strategies, and Long-Term Performance.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Effect of three post systems on the fracture resistance of teeth with extensive coronal structure loss and internal resorption.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Fracture strength of CAD/CAM glass fiber post-and-cores: a systematic review.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Review
- Fracture resistance of CAD/CAM-milled, 3D-printed, and customized fiber post-and-core systems: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Mechanical behavior of esthetic CAD/CAM post-core restorations: a 3D finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Fracture resistance and bond strength of endodontically treated teeth, restored with three fiber post and core system: an in vitro study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of stress distribution in maxillary premolar restored with onlay fabricated with different restorative materials - A three-dimensional finite element analysis study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Fracture Resistance of Resin Matrix Ceramic Post and Core Compared to Prefabricated Fiber-Reinforced Composite Post and Core in Non-Ferrule Effect Teeth: An In Vitro Study.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Trueness and depth discrepancy of post-space scans using an intraoral scanner: influence of preparation dimensions: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- AI-powered finite element analysis for predicting fracture patterns in endodontically treated teeth restored with posts.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Fracture resistance of CAD/CAM tooth-colored versus cast metal post-and-core restorations in root filled teeth: An in vitro study.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rising demand for improved aesthetics has driven the utilization of recently introduced aesthetic materials for creating custom post and core restorations. However, information regarding the fracture resistance of these materials remains unclear, which limits their practical use as custom post and core restorations in clinical applications. AIM OF THE STUDY: This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of three non-metallic esthetic post and core restorations and their modes of failure. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-nine single-rooted human maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated. A standardized post space preparation of 9mm length was performed to all teeth to receive custom-made post and core restorations. The prepared teeth were randomly allocated to receive a post and core restoration made of one of the following materials (n=13): glass fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network (PICN). An intraoral scanner was used to scan all teeth including the post spaces. Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) was used to fabricate post and core restorations. Post and core restorations were cemented using self-adhesive resin cement. All specimens were subjected to fracture resistance testing using a universal testing machine. Failure mode analysis was assessed using a stereomicroscope and SEM. The data was statistically analyzed using One-Way ANOVA test followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni adjusted significance level.
resultsCustom PEEK post and core restorations displayed the least fracture load values at 286.16 ± 67.09 N. In contrast, FRC exhibited the highest average fracture load at 452.60 ± 105.90 N, closely followed by PICN at 426.76 ± 77.99 N. In terms of failure modes, 46.2% of specimens with PICN were deemed non-restorable, while for PEEK and FRC, these percentages were 58.8% and 61.5%, respectively.
conclusionsWithin the limitation of this study, both FRC and PICN demonstrated good performance regarding fracture resistance, surpassing that of PEEK.
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.