ArticleBMC oral health2025
Micro CT evaluation of marginal discrepancies of endocrown restored molars with different intrapulpal depths and materials of fabrication. (in-vitro study).
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of endocrown design modification on retention & microleakage: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation of implant-supported PEEK crowns fabricated by 3D printing, milling, and pressing: a micro-CT analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluating micro-CT as a tool for advanced research in prosthetic dentistry: systematic review and meta-analysis.Odontology · 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
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different preparation depths (0, 2 and 4 mm) of different restoration designs (classic endocrown design versus overlay design) on marginal adaptation of restorations fabricated of two different restorative materials (lithium disilicate and PEEK). MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty mandibular natural molars were collected as abutments for the restorations of this study, and grouped in three main groups of different cavity depths (0, 2 and 4). Each group was divided into two subgroups according to material of fabrication to (L) for lithium disilicate (IPS emax CAD, Ivoclar vivadent, Switzarland) and (P) for PEEK (Bio-hpp, Bredent, Germany). CAD/CAM milling technology was used for fabrication of restorations. After cementation of restorations over abutments, hydrothermal aging was performed, and then marginal adaptation was evaluated via micro CT technology.
resultsRegarding cavity depths, there was a significant difference between different groups (p < 0.001). The highest value was found in samples with 4 mm extension (84.35 ± 18.16), followed by samples with 2 mm extension (66.52 ± 21.86), while the lowest value was found in samples without pulpal extension (59.41 ± 22.16). Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed samples with 4 mm extension to have a significantly higher value than samples without extension (p < 0.001). Regarding materials of fabrication, PEEK (85.32 ± 12.37) had a significantly higher value than Emax (54.86 ± 20.86) (p < 0.001).
conclusionsIncreasing intrapulpal cavity depths increases vertical marginal gap of lithium disilicate or PEEK restorations. Endocrowns fabricated of lithium disilicate show less marginal discrepancies than that of endocrowns fabricated of PEEK.
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.