ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2025
The influence of different types of bevels on the fracture resistance of directly restored lower anterior teeth.
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background and aims: In recent years, dental trauma has been on the rise. The most common, regarding permanent dentition, are uncomplicated fractures (involving enamel or enamel and dentin) of the maxillary central incisors, followed by maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular central incisors. In anterior teeth, high impact stresses are frequently produced and because of this it is necessary that the restoration has a high fracture resistance. The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of marginal cavity preparations (45° bevel and chamfer bevel) on the fracture resistance of teeth treated with direct composite resins. Methods: For this study, 24 extracted mandibular incisors were used. All soft tissue debris and tartar were removed. During the study, the teeth were kept in saline to prevent dehydration. The teeth were divided into three groups of 8 teeth each. Group number 1 was used as a control and named C, in group number 2, named CH, incisors were prepared with a chamfer type of bevel, and in group number 3, named B45, incisors were prepared with a 45° bevel. After preparing all mandibular incisors, they were directly restored with nano-ceramic composite (Ceram.x® Duo, Dentsply Sirona). Subsequently, all three groups were fractured to determine the maximum compressive load using the Instron 3366 universal testing machine. To ensure a standardized fracturing process, all incisors were embedded in self-polymerizing acrylic resin up to the neck to replicate the conditions in the oral cavity. Results: The Student's T-test was employed for statistical analysis, revealing a statistically insignificant difference between the CH and B45 groups. Nonetheless, it was noted that the average values of maximum compressive loads in the chamfer bevel group were higher compared to those in the 45° bevel group, indicating its superior resistance to fracture. Additionally, the results of the fracture resistance test demonstrated that intact mandibular incisors are three times more resistant to fracture than mandibular incisors prepared and restored with dental bevels. Conclusion: Intact teeth present a superior fracture resistance compared to teeth that have been subjected to trauma or carious processes, requiring coronal restoration; dental restorations made with a chamfer bevel marginal preparation withstand higher forces with improved fracture resistance compared to those made with a 45° bevel marginal preparation.
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.