ArticleScientific reports2024
An in vitro evaluation of tensile strength of molar endocrown milled from various computer aided design and manufacturing materials.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of endocrown design modification on retention & microleakage: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparison of Fracture Resistance Based on Ferrule Presence vs Material Type in Maxillary Central Incisor Endocrown Restorations.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
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
New computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials have been reported to have suitable mechanical and physical properties for endocrown restorations. However, there is a lack of literature on evaluating the retention of endocrown using these materials. This in vitro study aimed to compare the retention of endocrowns fabricated from 3 different CAD-CAM materials. Sixty human mandibular third molars were divided into 3 groups (n = 20) according to the material used: (e.max CAD, Ivoclar AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein), (HC, Shofu, Koyoto, Japan), and (Brilliant Crios, Coltene, Altstätten, Switzerland) (n = 20). Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 1 week and subjected to 5000 thermal cycles. A universal testing machine (5500R/1123, Instron, Norwood, USA) was used to measure the tensile force. All results were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05), and different failure modes were demonstrated. The results revealed that e. max CAD showed the highest mean tensile force value (402.35 ± 15.812) N, and the lowest mean tensile force value was for Brilliant Coris (118.90 ± 12.430) N (P < .001). It is concluded that e.max CAD endocrowns showed the highest tensile force values after thermocycling in comparison to other materials with a significant difference, which may have a promising impact on the survival of endocrown restorations.
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.