ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2024
Clinical Survival of Reduced-Thickness Monolithic Lithium-Disilicate Crowns: A 3-Year Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 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.
- A 3-Year Split-Mouth Randomized Non-Inferiority Controlled Trial Comparing Cement-Retained Monolithic CAD-CAM Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Crowns for Single Posterior Implant Restorations.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Trial
- Post fatigue fracture resistance of lithium disilicate and zirconia crowns: vertical versus horizontal preparations (an in vitro study).The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
- Effects of Repeated Use and Sterilization on the Wear of Zirconia Implant Drills: A SEM-Based Analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to see if the minimally invasive approach (reduced restoration thickness) would result in good clinical success of monolithic ceramic crowns compared to conventional layered all-ceramic crowns, and thus be an alternative to conventional tooth preparation. Materials and methods: The ceramic that was investigated was IPS e.max lithium-disilicate ceramic produced using two different processing methods. A comparison was made between monolithic crowns with reduced thickness and standard layered crowns. Fifty-two patients, who had undergone endodontic treatment on either a premolar or molar, were randomly assigned into two groups. The teeth intended for layered crowns underwent to a 2 mm occlusal reduction with a 1 mm rounded shoulder, whereas the teeth intended for monolithic crowns underwent to a 1 mm reduction in the occlusal area with a 0.6 mm rounded shoulder. The clinical success was evaluated in eight categories using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The observation period was 36 months, with control appointments every 6 months. Results: There was no significant difference in clinical success between monolithic and conventional layered crowns after 3 years. One monolithic crown fractured while all other crowns were intact and the survival rate was 96%. All layered crowns were intact and the survival rate was 100%. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that the minimally invasive approach can be a good alternative to conventional tooth preparation. IPS e.max lithium-disilicate ceramic demonstrated an exceptional three-year survival rate independently of the thickness of the material.
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.