ArticleBMC oral health2025
Mechanical effects of foundation restoration on onlay preparations of mandibular first molars after endodontic treatment.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFoundation restorations involve the use of materials such as composite resins to partially restore defective dentin structures. They can be used to simplify the geometry of complex cavities, facilitate restoration insertion, and reduce the polymerization shrinkage of the adhesive. However, the stress distribution of teeth restored after foundation restoration placement is not fully understood.
methodsFinite element analysis was used in this study. The purpose was to analyze the stress distribution of onlays with composite resin foundation restorations and to investigate the potential benefits of preserving the remaining dental tissue.A three-dimensional finite element model of a mesial proximal defect of the mandibular first molar after endodontic treatment was established. Four types of onlay restorations (GA and GB: complete-coverage onlay; GC and GD: partial-coverage onlay) were designed using this model. After the models were established, a fixed vertical load of 600 N and an oblique load of 200 N were applied, and the stress distributions were compared between the monolithic ceramic block restorations (GA and GC) and those with foundation restorations (GB and GD). The stress distributions of the onlays and models were also analyzed.
resultsUnder vertical loading conditions, GD exhibited higher peak equivalent stress levels in the onlay and adhesive layers. The maximum principal stress experienced by enamel was lower in GB and GD than in GA and GC, whereas it was greater in GB and GD than in GA and GC for the onlay and adhesive layer. Under oblique loading, the peak equivalent stress and maximum principal stress of the adhesive layer and enamel were the lowest in the GB and GD groups.
conclusionsFoundation restorations provide good stress dispersion, which can improve the protection of the remaining dental tissue. However, onlay restorations after foundation restoration placement should be used with caution in patients with excessive occlusal forces. Oblique loading was more destructive to the adhesive layer and remaining dental tissue. Complete-coverage restorations have better stress dispersion than partial-coverage restorations.
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.