ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Fracture resistance of molars receiving nanoceramic-resin CAD/CAM onlays after cervical marginal elevation with different injectable restorative materials: effect of six-month water storage.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the influence of six-month water storage on the fracture resistance of molars receiving mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) nanoceramic CAD/CAM onlay restorations after cervical marginal elevation (CME) with different injectable restorative materials. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred ten sound mandibular molars received standardized MOD onlay preparations with cervical margins extending 2 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Molars were randomly assigned into five groups (n = 42) according to the restorative materials used for CME: No-CME Group, control; CME-HVGI Group, highly viscous glass ionomer; CME-ICR Group, injectable composite resin; CME-RMGI Group, resin-modified glass ionomer; CME-BAIR Group, bioactive ionic resin. Immediate dentin sealing was performed on each molar before receiving nanoceramic-resin CAD/CAM onlay restoration. Each group was subdivided into two subgroups (n = 21) based on whether they underwent six months of water storage. All specimens were subjected to clinical simulation via thermo-mechanical loading, fracture resistance testing, and failure mode analysis.
resultsNo statistically significant difference in fracture resistance was observed when comparing the tested CME groups to the control group after six months of water storage. Regarding failure mode, irreparable failure was significantly dominant, with no significant difference among all groups.
conclusionsSix-month water storage had no adverse effect on the fracture resistance of teeth receiving nanoceramic onlay restorations, regardless of the type of cervical margin elevating material used. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The smoothly handled injectable restorative materials used for CME of molars with nanoceramic-resin CAD/CAM onlay restorations could endure humid conditions, exhibiting acceptable performance under compressive loading.
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.