ArticleBMC oral health2025
How does endodontic access cavity design affect the biomechanics of a maxillary premolar?? a finite element analysis study.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different endodontic access cavity designs on biomechanical properties of endodontically treated maxillary premolars under various static loads by finite element analysis method.
methodsBased on cone beam computed tomography data of maxillary first premolar, the models of endodontically treated teeth with traditional access cavity (TEC-I), traditional access cavity with Class-II mesio-occlusal cavity design (TEC-II), conventional access cavity (CEC), ninja access cavity (NEC), caries-driven access cavity (Cd-EC), buccal access cavity (BEC) and bucco-occlusal access cavity (BOEC). Three different static loads which were single-point vertical load (Static I), multi-point vertical load (Static II) and multi-point oblique load (Static III) were applied. The stress distribution and maximum Von Misses stress values were recorded.
resultsFor the enamel surface, the stress concentration was seen around the central fossa in Static I, on the marginal edge and palatal tubercle in Static II, and on the palatal cusp tip in Static III loads. For the dentin surface, the stress concentration was observed on pericervical area and buccal root surface in Static I, on all around the root surface in Static II, and on buccal and palatal root surfaces and furcation area in Static III loads. While the minimum stress distribution was detected in control group, followed by NEC and CEC designs, the maximum stress distribution was generally monitored in Cd-EC and TEC-II cavity designs.
conclusionThe increased tissue loss in maxillary premolars due to endodontic access cavity preparation meant the higher stress distribution on the tooth surface.
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.