ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
Intracanal reinforcement with direct composite buildup as an alternative to fiber posts: An
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of different intra-canal restorative techniques on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth: an in-vitro comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Short fiber-reinforced composite versus fiber posts in endodontically treated premolars with MOD cavities: effect of intracanal extension depth.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Stress distribution in Class I composite restorations with polyethylene fiber wallpapering under different occlusal loads: A three-dimensional finite element analysis.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate and compare the fracture resistance and mode of failure of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors restored using polyethylene fibers (PFs) and short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC) followed by direct composite restoration. Settings and Design: Academic, Materials and Methods: After seeking the approval of the institutional ethics committee, following the inclusion criteria, 66 maxillary central incisors were selected, disinfected, and randomly divided into three groups ( Statistical Analysis: Data were analyzed for significance by analysis of variance and Tukey's Results: The highest mean fracture resistance was observed in the intact teeth group (792.91 MPa), followed by Group 3B (everX flow 3 mm) at 746.27 and Group 2A (Ribbond 1 mm) at 734.09, with no statistically significant differences. While Group 3A (everX flow 1 mm) and Group 2B (Ribbond 3 mm) showed statistically lower fracture resistance values of 599.73 and 546.50, respectively. The lowest mean fracture resistance was recorded in the negative control group (265.54 MPa). Conclusion: This ultraconservative approach using the two reinforcing fibers that aims to preserve and reinforce the pericervical dentin and restore the remaining tooth structure with direct composite restoration could be a promising treatment option for the rehabilitation of badly mutilated teeth.
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.