Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38715352›Full record

ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2025

Fracture load of chairside CAD-CAM veneers fabricated with pre-and fully crystalized lithium disilicate ceramics.

Carlos A Jurado, Jacquelyn S Yeh, Cristina M P Vidal, Seok-Hwan Cho, Salahaldeen Abuhammoud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Fracture load of chairside CAD-CAM veneers fabricated with pre-and fully crystalized lithium disilicate ceramics.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Carlos A JuradoDivision of Operative Dentistry, Department of General Dentistry, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Dentistry, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7437-4855
Jacquelyn S YehThe University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0273-6180
Cristina M P VidalDepartment of Operative Dentistry, The University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Seok-Hwan ChoDepartment of Prosthodontics, The University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2383-4011
Salahaldeen AbuhammoudDepartment of Prosthodontics, The University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9509-7500

Funding

College of Dentistry at the University of Iowa/Students Research Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the fracture load of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) veneers fabricated with two conventional pre-crystallized and two fully crystallized lithium disilicate ceramic materials. MATERIALS AND

methodsSeventy-five chairside CAD-CAM veneers (15 specimens/group) for maxillary right central incisors were fabricated with different lithium disilicate brands: (1) IPS e.max CAD; (2) Amber Mill; (3) Cerec Tessera; (4) n!ce Straumann; and (5) GC Initial LiSi Block. Restorations were cemented with resin luting cement (Variolink Esthetic, Ivoclar) to 3D-printed resin dies. Bonded restorations received 5000 thermal cycles and then were loaded until fracture. Statistical analysis included One-Way ANOVA.

resultsConventional pre-crystallized e.max CAD displayed the highest fracture load value (640 N), followed by fully-crystallized n!ce Straumann (547 N), pre-crystallized Cerec Tessera (503 N), pre-crystallized Amber Mill (476 N), respectively; fully-crystallized GC Initial LiSi Block (431 N) displayed the lowest values. When comparing the fracture load of recent lithium disilicate ceramic material to the e.max group, which acted as the control, significant differences were noted. The LiSi Block GC group, in particular, had considerably higher mean difference values (208.867, p < 0.001, 95% CI [89.63, 328.10]), as did the Amber Mill group (164.200, p = 0.002, 95% CI [44.96, 283.44]) and CEREC Tessera group (137.533, p = 0.016, 95% CI [18.30, 256.77]). The e.max and n!ce Straumann groups had no statistically significant differences in mean scores (92.933, p = 0.198, 95% CI [-26.30, 212.17]). These findings imply that the clinical performance of recent lithium disilicate veneers varies when compared to the e.max CAD group.

conclusionsThe fracture load of chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate veneers for maxillary central incisors varies according to the type of ceramic brands. Conventional pre-crystallized e.max CAD displayed higher fracture load than the recent pre- and fully-crystallized lithium disilicate materials, emphasizing the significance of choosing the right product based on the desired clinical outcome.

Indexed as

CeramicsComputer-Aided DesignDental PorcelainDental Prosthesis DesignDental Restoration FailureDental VeneersCrystallizationDental Stress AnalysisHumansIncisorMaterials TestingDental Porcelainlithia disilicateCAD‐CAMfully‐crystallizedlithium disilicatepre‐crystallizedrestorationsveneers

Identifiers

PMID38715352
PMCPMC11976681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.