ArticleScientific reports2025
In vitro assessment of fracture resistance of premolar teeth restored with diatomite zirconia versus barium glass filled resin composite.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluate the fracture resistance of premolar teeth with MOD cavities restored with Diatomite Zirconia/Silica Filled Resin Composite Versus Barium Glass/Yetterbium Fluoride Filled resin composite systems. A 40 maxillary premolar were divided equally into four main groups (10 teeth each); a positive control group of unprepared teeth and a negative control group with prepared and unrestored MOD cavity. While the two other restored groups in which teeth with prepared MOD cavities were restored either with Diatomite Zirconia/Silica Filled Resin Composite (Zircon Fill composite, ZF) or Barium Glass/Yetterbium Fluoride Filled resin composite (Neo Spectra Composite, NS). A standardized MOD cavity was prepared in premolar teeth. Teeth were restored according to the corresponding group, and then exposed to thermocycling prior fracture resistance tested. Data collected from fracture resistance and failure mode were collected and statistically analyzed with ANOVA test. The significance level was set at p < 0.05 within all tests. There was a significant difference between different tested groups, with prepared teeth having significantly lower fracture resistance than sound teeth and samples restored with both restorative materials (p < 0.001). For Neo Spectra, most samples had mixed while Zirconfil were either had adhesive or cohesive failures with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.077). All the associations between fracture resistance and failure modes were not statistically significant. The two tested resin composites exhibited similar fracture resistance to each other and to sound teeth. Diatomite Zirconia/Silica Filled Resin Composite versus Barium Glass/Yetterbium Fluoride Filled resin composite systems were able to reinforce and restore the strength properties of the tooth.
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.