ArticleBMC oral health2024
Evaluating fatigue resistance in occlusal veneers: a comparative study of processing techniques and material thickness of lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press vs. IPS e.max CAD).
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 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.
- Thermo-mechanical loading of innovative "Mini-skirt" preparation design versus conventional full-coverage maxillary central incisor preparation design: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Fracture Resistance and Failure Modes of Ultrathin Occlusal Veneers Made of Different Ceramic Materials: An In Vitro Study.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2026Article
- Fracture strength and failure patterns of different restoration approaches in endodontically treated maxillary premolars: an in vitro study with fractographic analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate and 3D-Printed Resin Crowns with Varying Occlusal Thickness: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLithium disilicate occlusal veneers are popular for minimally invasive posterior teeth restoration. The aim of this study was to compare the fatigue resistance and crack pattern of lithium disilicate occlusal veneers fabricated using pressing and milling techniques with varying thicknesses.
methodsSixty lithium disilicate discs, representing occlusal veneers, were divided into four groups (n = 15) based on processing technique (IPS e.max Press or IPS e.max CAD) and thickness (0.5 or 0.8 mm). A step-stress fatigue test was applied with axial loading, consisting of 10,000 cycles/step with a step size of 50 N until failure. Fractographic analysis was performed using SEM. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier test, Mantel-Cox test, and Weibull analysis.
resultsBoth processing techniques resulted in similar fatigue resistances at 0.5 mm and 0.8 mm thicknesses. However, the 0.8 mm lithium disilicate restorations showed a significantly higher survival rate than the 0.5 mm lithium disilicate restorations (log-rank tests, χ
conclusionsAt 0.5 mm or 0.8 mm material thickness, the processing technique did not affect the fatigue resistance or crack patterns of the lithium disilicate occlusal veneers. However, the lithium disilicate with a thickness of 0.8 mm exhibited a superior survival probability compared to that with a thickness of 0.5 mm.
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.