Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40632317›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2025

Evaluation of cuspal deflection and fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with different restorative material combinations.

Burak Kose, Soley Arslan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Burak KoseFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Türkiye. burkkito@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4911-2268
Soley ArslanFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study evaluated the effects of restorations using varied materials and their combinations on cuspal deflection and fracture resistance of endodontically treated MOD cavitated maxillary premolars. MATERIALS AND

methods168 premolar teeth were used in the study. The teeth were divided into 14 groups (12 teeth in each group) as Positive control (Group 1), Negative control (Group 2) and Test groups (Group 3-14). MOD cavities were prepared, and then endodontic treatments were performed on teeth in all groups except the positive control group. Group 1 was the Positive control (intact teeth), and Group 2 was the Negative control (only MOD cavity and endodontic treatment). In Groups 3-7 and Groups 9-13, EverX Posterior, SDR Plus Bulk Fill Flowable, G-aenial Universal Injectable, Biodentine, and Fuji II LC were used as the lower layer, respectively. In Groups 3-7, Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative was used as the upper layer, while in Groups 9-13, Tetric N-Ceram was used. Group 8 was entirely restored with Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative and Group 14 with Tetric N-Ceram. Cusp deflection was measured. Fracture resistance testing was performed.

resultsWithin each group, there was a statistically significant decrease in cusp deflection change values at all measured time points (p < 0.05 In the comparison between the groups, cusp deflection change values ​​were found to be significantly higher at all times in the groups where EverX Posterior was applied as the lower layer and Tetric N-Ceram was the upper layer (p < 0.05). In the groups where Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative was used, differences were seen between the groups at all times (p < 0.05).Groups 4 and 5 exhibited fracture resistance similar to the positive control group (p > 0.05). In the comparison between the groups, a significant increase in fracture resistance was observed in the groups in which only EverX Posterior and SDR Plus Bulk Fill Flowable were applied as the lower layer and the upper layer was Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative (p < 0.05).

conclusionsEndodontically treated teeth may exhibit different cuspal deflections and fracture resistance when restored with different materials and combinations of these materials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When performing coronal restoration of an endodontically treated premolar teeth, it is recommended to select and use the appropriate restorative material, taking into account the position of the tooth in the mouth, cavity dimensions and the amount of material loss.

Indexed as

Dental MaterialsDental Restoration, PermanentTooth CrownTooth FracturesTooth, NonvitalBicuspidComposite ResinsDental Cavity PreparationDental Stress AnalysisGlass Ionomer CementsHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMaterials TestingComposite ResinsDental MaterialsGlass Ionomer CementsBiodentineBulk fill composite resinCuspal deflectionFiber-reinforced composite resinFlowable compositeFracture resistanceGlass ionomer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.