ArticleDentistry journal2024
Influence of Direct Coronal Restoration Materials on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Premolars: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The long-term survival of an endodontically treated tooth depends on a successful root canal treatment as well as an adequate definitive coronal restoration. This study aimed to evaluate the strength of endodontically treated premolars with mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavity preparation restored with different direct coronal restoration materials but from the same manufacturer against fracture. (2) Methods: sixty intact premolars were selected and placed into five groups (n = 12): G1-intact teeth, G2-endodontic treatment and unrestored MOD cavities, G3-endodontic treatment and MOD cavities restored with Tetric PowerFlow and Tetric EvoCeram, G4-endodontic treatment and MOD cavities restored with Multicore Flow and Tetric EvoCeram, and G5-endodontic treatment and MOD cavities restored with Multicore Flow. The specimens were subjected to an axial compression load at a speed of 1.6 mm/min and optically inspected before and after with a stereomicroscope. For each premolars group, the following data were recorded: the compression resistance, the compressive strength, and the maximum force supported. The microstructure of the samples after the compression test was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). (3) Results: statistical analysis (ANOVA and Tukey test) showed that there was a statistically significant difference between G1 and the other groups. Even though there was no statistically significant difference between the restored groups, a better mechanical behavior was registered within the G3. (4) Conclusions: this in vitro study indicated that none of the materials used can lead to a higher or at least similar fracture resistance as the intact teeth. The coronal restoration only with nano-hybrid composites may lead to a higher therapeutic benefit for the fracture-susceptible premolars.
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.