ArticleBMC oral health2025
How to adaptively balance 'classic' or 'conservative' approaches in tooth defect management: a 3D-finite element analysis 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 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.
- Development of Micro-CT-Based Anatomically Accurate Tooth Model for Finite Element Analysis of Composite Restorations.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe widespread adoption of resin-based composites has increased interest in minimally invasive treatment strategies that prioritize the preservation of sound dentin. While classic cavity preparation techniques remain clinically relevant, the optimal cavity design for ensuring restoration longevity and residual tooth structure integrity remains uncertain. This study aims to investigate the influence of cavity dimensions on the mechanical performance of resin composites and natural tooth structures using finite element analysis (FEA). By evaluating stress distribution across different cavity configurations, this study seeks to determine the optimal cavity design for various tooth defects, ultimately offering insights into effectively balancing conventional and conservative cavity preparation principles.
methodsTwelve Class II cavity models with varying lengths (L), widths (W), and depths (D) were generated using a single extracted natural tooth. A vertical occlusal load of 500 N was applied, and interactions among the different model components were simulated using tie constraints. The distribution of maximum principal stress (MaxPS) was analyzed via static linear FEA.
resultsMedium-sized cavities exhibited relatively lower stress concentrations. The depth, width, and length of the cavities significantly influenced the MaxPS values. Notably, cavities with a depth of 2/3 demonstrated lower MaxPS values compared to both shallower and deeper counterparts (Dentin: W
conclusionCavity dimensions play a critical role in influencing stress distribution within both the restorative material and the tooth structure, underscoring the need to optimize cavity size. These findings support decision-making during cavity preparation, highlighting the trade-off between preserving tooth structure and ensuring mechanical stability. It is important to note that this approach should not be considered as a one-size-fit-all recommendation, but rather as a case-specific strategy tailored to the unique clinical conditions of each patient.
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.