ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of fiber-reinforced composites on the fracture strength values under different thickness of CAD/CAM systems.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the effect of fiber-reinforced composites on fracture-strength (FS) values of nanoceramic CAD/CAM restoration materials with different thicknesses.
methodsOne-hundred extracted, caries-free human maxillary premolars were divided into two main groups based on the thickness of the nanoceramic CAD/CAM restorative material (2 mm and 3 mm). Within each main group, five subgroups were formed: one control, one non-fiber (G-ænial Universal Flo), and three fiber-reinforced experimental subgroups (Ribbond, EverStick NET, and EverX Flow). Standardized MOD cavities were prepared in all experimental groups, extending 2 mm below the cementoenamel junction and 3 mm wide on the proximal walls. All restorations were fabricated using Cerasmart blocks and cemented with G-CEM Link Force dual-cure resin cement. FS testing was performed, and the data were statistically analysed (p < 0.05).
resultsRibbond significantly increased fracture resistance compared to the control group (p = 0.047), while other fiber materials showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). An increase in restorative material thickness enhanced fracture resistance in fiber-reinforced groups (p < 0.001). In the control group, variation in the remaining tooth structure height did not significantly affect fracture resistance (p = 0.078). There was also no significant difference in the interaction between the fiber-reinforced composite type and restoration thickness (p>0.05).
conclusionAlthough the thickness of the restorative material may influence FS, the use of fiber-reinforced composites does not appear to significantly affect the fracture resistance of nanoceramic CAD/CAM restorations.
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.