ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2025
Effect of thermomechanical aging on fracture strength of anterior crowns fabricated with different CAD-CAM materials.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 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.
- Repair Performance of Additively and Subtractively Manufactured Permanent Crown Materials: A Combined Mechanical and Optical Evaluation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Impact of Thermomechanical Aging on Marginal Fit and Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM Endocrowns Fabricated from Different Materials.Polymers · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the effect of thermomechanical aging on fracture strength of CAD/CAM (computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing) anterior crowns. MATERIALS AND
methodsA resin maxillary central incisor was prepared and 96 epoxy resin replicas were obtained. Anterior crowns were produced and divided into four groups: IPS (IPS e.max CAD, 1.5 mmthickness), CD (Celtra Duo, 1.5 mm thickness), GC (GC Initial UHT, 1.5 mm thickness) and GC1 (GC Initial UHT, 1 mm thickness). Twelve crowns of each group were subjected to a chewing simulator for 240,000 cycles, and the other 12 crowns were regarded as control. Fracture resistance of aged and non-aged crowns were tested using a universal testing machine (Shimadzu AGS-X). One-way ANOVA, Tukey post hoc and independent sample t-tests were used to analyze the data and a
resultsIPS crowns without aging had the highest (2094.3 ± 399.31 N), and the GC1 crowns after aging had the lowest (1216.99 ± 302.96 N) fracture strength values. The difference of fracture strength among the same thickness samples without aging was not statistically significant (
conclusionAll monolithic crowns employed in this research proved to be resistant to physiological chewing forces in the anterior region.
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.