ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with additively manufactured inlays and self-cure bulk-fill composites.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of surface treatment protocols and thermocycling on the optical, surface, and mechanical properties of additively manufactured resin materials.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Cuspal displacement, marginal adaptation, and nanoleakage in maxillary premolars restored with a novel auto-cured bulk-fill composite versus a light-cured bulk-fill composite: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Assessment of fracture resistance in endodontically treated premolars restored using various bulk-fill composites.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Comparison of fracture resistance in endodontically treated premolars with extensive MOD cavities restored using different materials: AnBioinformation · 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
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with various direct and indirect restorative approaches, focusing on new self-cure composites and 3D-printed resin inlays. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty extracted human maxillary first premolars were divided into six groups (n = 10): (1) positive control (intact), (2) negative control (unrestored endodontically treated), (3) EverX Posterior + G-ænial Posterior (4) Stela Capsule (self-cure bulkfill composite), (5) Stela Automix (self-cure bulkfill composite), and (6) Saremco CrownTec (3D-printed inlays). All teeth, except Group 1, underwent root canal treatment and standardized MOD cavity preparation. Restored specimens were thermocycled (5000 cycles, 5-55 °C) and subjected to oblique compressive loading at 30°. One-way ANOVA and post hoc tests assessed statistical significance (p < 0.05).
resultsThe intact group showed the highest fracture resistance. Among restorations, 3D-printed inlays and Stela Automix performed significantly better than EverX Posterior + G-ænial Posterior and Stela Capsule. The negative control had the lowest resistance. Differences among groups were statistically significant (p < 0.001).
conclusionsBoth 3D-printed inlays and Stela Automix self-cure composite significantly improved fracture resistance in endodontically treated premolars, indicating their clinical potential as alternatives to conventional direct restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings support the use of high-performance 3D-printed inlays and automix self-cure composites for reinforcing structurally compromised premolars, offering viable restorative options in cases of extensive MOD cavities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41003825What 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.