Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38790151›Full record

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

Influence of occlusal thickness on the fracture resistance of chairside milled lithium disilicate posterior full-coverage single-unit prostheses containing virgilite: A comparative in vitro study.

Carlos A Jurado, Christian Edgar Davila, Alexandra Davila, Alfredo I Hernandez, Yukari Odagiri, Kelvin I Afrashtehfar, Damian Lee

Abstract readComparative Study
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

7 authors.

Carlos A JuradoOperative Dentistry Division, Department of General Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7437-4855
Christian Edgar DavilaDivision of Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, University of Florida College of Dentistry, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Alexandra DavilaDivision of Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, University of Florida College of Dentistry, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Alfredo I HernandezA.T. Still University Arizona School of Dentistry and Oral Health, Mesa, Arizona, USA.
Yukari OdagiriDepartment of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Aichi Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan.
Kelvin I AfrashtehfarDepartment of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6053-8967
Damian LeeDepartment of Prosthodontics, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0598-9842

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the fracture resistance of chairside computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) lithium disilicate mandibular posterior crowns with virgilite of different occlusal thicknesses and compare them to traditional lithium disilicate crowns. MATERIALS AND

methodsSeventy-five chairside CAD-CAM crowns were fabricated for mandibular right first molars, 60 from novel lithium disilicate with virgilite (CEREC Tessera, Dentsply Sirona), and 15 from traditional lithium disilicate (e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent). These crowns were distributed across five groups based on occlusal thickness and material: Group 1 featured CEREC Tessera crowns with 0.8 mm thickness, Group 2 had 1.0 mm thickness, Group 3 had 1.2 mm thickness, Group 4 with 1.5 mm thickness, and Group 5 included e.max CAD crowns with 1.0 mm thickness. These crowns were luted onto 3D-printed resin dies using Multilink Automix resin cement (Ivoclar Vivadent). Subsequently, they underwent cyclic loading (2,000,000 cycles at 1 Hz with a 275 N force) and loading until fracture. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) assessed the fractured specimens. Statistical analysis involved one-way ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis Test (α = 0.05).

resultsFracture resistance varied significantly (<0.001) across mandibular molar crowns fabricated from chairside CAD-CAM lithium disilicate containing virgilite, particularly between crowns with 0.8 mm and those with 1.2 and 1.5 mm occlusal thickness. However, no significant differences were found when comparing crowns with 1, 1.2, and 1.5 mm thicknesses. CEREC Tessera crowns with 1.5 mm thickness exhibited the highest resistance (2119 N/mm

conclusionsThe relationship between thickness and fracture resistance in the virgilite lithium disilicate full-coverage crowns was directly proportional, indicating that increased thickness corresponded to higher fracture resistance. No significant differences were noted among crowns with thicknesses ranging from 1 to 1.5 mm. This novel ceramic exhibited superior fracture resistance compared to traditional lithium disilicate.

Indexed as

Computer-Aided DesignCrownsDental OcclusionDental PorcelainDental Prosthesis DesignDental Restoration FailureDental Stress AnalysisHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMaterials TestingMolarDental Porcelainlithia disilicateCAD‐CAM systemscomputer‐aided designdental crownsdental materialsdental occlusion

Identifiers

PMID38790151
PMCPMC12541292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.