ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Comparison of Commercial and Experimental Fibre-Reinforced Composites in Restoring Endodontically Treated Teeth with Minimal Coronal Dentine: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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.
- Short fiber-reinforced composite versus fiber posts in endodontically treated premolars with MOD cavities: effect of intracanal extension depth.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Fracture Strength of CAD/CAM Endocrown and Post-Core Restorations with Fiber Strip Reinforcement in Mandibular Premolars.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo compare the fracture resistance of teeth with varying degrees of residual coronal dentine after restoration using two fibre-reinforced composite core materials. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy extracted human lower premolars were divided into four groups: sound (control), one missing proximal wall (Cl-II), two missing proximal walls (MOD), and endocrown (EC). Subgroups were restored with either a short fibre-reinforced flowable composite (EverX Flow) or an experimental fibre-reinforced composite. Except for the control, teeth underwent endodontic treatment and were restored accordingly. Fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis compared fracture resistance across groups.
resultsTeeth in EC exhibited the highest fracture resistance (1153.43 ± 332.52 N), comparable to sound teeth (1114.03 ± 185.58 N) and not significantly different from the experimental composite group (1006.89 ± 200.51 N) (
conclusionsEndocrowns using direct fibre-reinforced composites provided protection for endodontically treated teeth with higher fracture resistance compared to teeth with MOD and Cl-II cavities. This gives direct composite endocrowns a potential for high-stress applications, though design and material selection remain critical.
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.