ArticleOdontology2025
Effect of different cavity designs and CAD/CAM blocks on fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with MOD cavities.
Article in Odontology, 2025. 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.
- Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with different bi-layered core and occlusal overlay materials: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Assessment of fracture resistance in endodontically treated premolars restored using various bulk-fill composites.Bioinformation · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored by different CAD/CAM blocks with different MOD cavity designs. A total of 56 maxillary premolars were selected and randomly divided into 4 groups. I: intact teeth as a positive control group. Standardized MOD cavities were prepared in the remaining group specimens. II: teeth had MOD cavities but were left unrestored as a negative control group. III: MOD preparations restored with inlays with no cusp reduction. IV: MOD preparations restored with overlays with cusp reduction. Group III and IV were further subdivided into two subgroups according to material used, i.e., either lithium disilicate or composite CAD/CAM blocks. All specimens were subjected to 5000 cycles of thermocycling and then tested for fracture resistance. Failure patterns were also examined. Data were statistically analyzed using Welch one-way ANOVA followed by Games-Howell's post hoc test. The results showed significant differences among the experimental groups (p < 0.001). The highest fracture resistance value was observed in positive control group, followed by overlays restored with lithium disilicate blocks. This was followed by overlays restored with composite blocks, then inlays restored by lithium disilicate blocks, inlays restored with composite blocks, while the lowest fracture resistance value was found in negative control group. Regarding failure modes, there was a significant difference between different groups (p < 0.001). The conclusion was that fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored by CAD/CAM inlays and overlays are greatly affected by the cavity design and material type.
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.