ArticleInternational journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering2025
Comparative Analysis of Various Cavosurface Margins in Class II Restorations Using 3D Finite Element Method.
Article in International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering, 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.
- From Classical Enamel/Dentin Bonding to Self-Adhesive Composites: A Narrative Review of Current Clinical Aspects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Effect of Beveling Large Class II Cavities on the Enamel Marginal Quality of Direct Resin-Based Restorations.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary aim of these analyses was to evaluate the mechanical characteristics of the restored proximal surface of the lower first molar by comparing four different preparation designs: (a) slot preparation, (b) slot preparation with bevel, (c) slot preparation with bevel and rounded proximal box corners (RPBC), and (d) slot preparation with bevel, rounded proximal box corners, and gingival bevel (GB). The finite element method was utilized to assess various load scenarios applied to slot and bevelled restorations prepared using adhesive restorative materials. The numerical analysis revealed higher tensile stresses by up to 15 MPa when normal traction was applied at the interface between enamel and slot preparations than at the interface between enamel and bevelled preparations. However, the beveled restorations showed increased shear stresses in their thin beveled regions. The results imply a risk of separation for slot restorations. Conversely, incorporating a bevel (with or without RPBC and GB) significantly decreased normal stresses on the restoration edge and shifted it predominantly to compressive stresses. Thus, bevelled restorations may be less prone to debonding at their edges under occlusal loads. However, they may still be susceptible to shear debonding when locally loaded on their thin-beveled regions.
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.