ArticleBMC oral health2025
Complicated crown fractures in maxillary central incisors restored by fragment reattachment technique: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
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
objectiveThis study utilized finite element analysis to investigate stress distribution in fragmented teeth treated with fragment reattachment technique(FRT). STUDY
designFour complex crown fracture models were constructed using maxillary imaging data. Four restoration methods were devised: direct reattachment (GA), reattachment with a fiber post (GB), complete crown restoration (GC), and post-core crown restoration (GD).
resultsComparison of stress distribution revealed that for identical fracture lines, the GB method had a significantly higher peak von Mises stress (VMS) in dentin than the GA method, while VMS in enamel was In the GC and GD methods, the peak VMS of the complete crown exceeded that of the enamel from the GA and GB methods. Additionally, the peak VMS of the resin core in GA and GB methods was less than that of the dentin. The peak VMS of adhesive layer 2 in the GD method was lower than in the GB method, with the average VMS of the fiber post in GD being lower than in GB.
conclusionFRT is a viable option for restoring complicated crown fractures. Closer proximity of the fracture line to the tooth neck increases debonding risk, and GD demonstrated superior stress performance under experimental conditions.
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.