ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2024
An
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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.
- Saving the split: An umbrella review on therapeutic approaches for cracked tooth syndrome.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Review
- Mechanical Performance of 3D-Printed Resins versus CAD/CAM PMMA for Provisional Crowns: New Evidence under Simulated Clinical Conditions.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of MOD inlay preparations restored with two different lithium disilicate glass ceramics. Materials and Methods: Standardized MOD inlay cavities were prepared on 64 human permanent premolar teeth and divided into two groups to be restored with lithium disilicate glass-ceramic materials, i.e. Group I with IPS e.max Press HT and Group II with Shofu Vintage LD Press T. The fracture resistance was assessed using a universal testing machine and recorded in Newtons (N). Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software (Version 17.0, IBM, USA). Results: The mean fracture resistance value obtained for Group I (IPS e.max Press HT) was 565.04 N while that obtained for Group II was 732.75 N. Statistically significant difference was found in this intergroup comparison ( Conclusion: The fracture resistance of MOD inlay preparations restored with Vintage LD Press T (Shofu) was significantly higher than those restored with IPS e.max Press HT (Ivoclar Vivadent).
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.