ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2025
The Effect of Chewing Simulation on Flexural Strength of Different Lithium Disilicate Ceramics.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Influence of Cusp Coverage Design and Hybrid Resin-Ceramic Materials on the Biomechanical Performance of Partial Coverage Restorations.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Improved Lithium Disilicate Ceramic has been highly valued in dentistry for over two decades, owing to its durability and aesthetic qualities, making it a preferred choice for both anterior and posterior crowns. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the flexural strength of two types of lithium disilicate blocks post-chewing simulation. Materials and Methods: Seventy-six lithium disilicate specimens were utilized in this study. They were divided into two primary groups (n=38) based on two brands: IPS Emax CAD LT (Ivoclar Vivadent) designated as (E), and Initial Lisi LT/B1 (GC America) designated as (L). Each primary group was further split into two subgroups (n=19) based on surface treatment: group E into (E0 & E1) and group L into (L0 & L1). Half of the specimens were subjected to flexural testing without chewing simulation cycles and designated as (E0 and L0), while the remainder were tested after 24×10 Statistical Analysis: Data were gathered, organized, and subjected to Shapiro-Wilk's and Levene's tests (p-value < 0.05), followed by analysis with Brown-Forsythe two-way ANOVA and Tamhane's post hoc tests to assess group differences (p-value <0.05). Results: There were significant statistical differences in the flexural strength values between the different brand groups before and after chewing simulation (p-value < 0.05). The IPS Emax CAD group showed values approximately twice that of the Initial Lisi group (307.2-310.5 MPa ± 48.5-67 vs 148.1-158.5 MPa ± 24.6-25.6). Conclusion: Within the limitation of the current study, the following may be concluded: 1. The study's findings suggest that Initial Lisi blocks should not be used for posterior teeth restorations. 2. This study can provide valuable insights for dental professionals to make informed decisions about which material is most appropriate for various clinical situations.
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.