ArticleBMC oral health2024
The fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with zirconia crowns, lithium disilicate or resin based ceramic endocrowns.
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 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 force of three different posterior aesthetic crowns and occlusal wear of antagonist primary teeth - AnJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of fracture toughness between zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics: AnBioinformation · 2025Article
- Thermomechanical aging effects on vertical marginal gap and fracture resistance: a comparative study of Bioflx and traditional pediatric crowns.BMC oral health · 2024Article
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
backgroundEndocrown in pediatric dentistry was rooted in the fundamental principles of preserving healthy dental tissues, leveraging contemporary adhesive methodologies.
aimThis research aimed on assessing and comparing the fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars when rehabilitated with zirconia crowns and two distinct types of endocrowns, namely E-Max and Brilliant Crios.
methodsThe study involved thirty, anonymized, freshly extracted second primary molars that underwent pulpotomy. These teeth were then evenly divided into three groups, each consisting of ten specimens: the zirconia crown, the E-Max endocrown, and the Brilliant Crios endocrown groups. Post-pulpotomy, the teeth were prepared for their respective restorations. Subsequent to this preparation, the zirconia crowns, E-Max endocrowns, and Brilliant Crios endocrowns were secured. To evaluate the fracture resistance using a computer-controlled testing machine (Instron), a progressively increasing load was applied to each group until fracture occurred. The gathered data were then analyzed for outliers and subjected to normality testing using the Shapiro-Wilk and/or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, with a significance threshold set at 0.05.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars among lithium disilicate (E-Max) group (mean=1367.59N), Brilliant Crios group (mean=1349.73N) and zirconia group (mean=1240.82N).
conclusionEndocrowns can be considered a promising restoration for pulpotomized primary molars.
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.