ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2025
Post fatigue fracture resistance of lithium disilicate and zirconia crowns: vertical versus horizontal preparations (an in vitro study).
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Cement Type on the Fracture Resistance of CAD-CAM Resin-Matrix Ceramic Anterior Crowns.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Comparative Quasi-Static Compressive Loading Performance of Two Ultrathin Ceramic Occlusal Veneers for Minimally Invasive Restorations.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effects of papain-based gel and air-abrasion enamel pretreatments on microleakage, sealant penetration, and shear bond strength of fissure sealant materials: anFrontiers in dental medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess and compare the post-fatigue fracture resistance of two types of ceramic crowns, zirconia and lithium-disilicate, when used with two margin designs (vertical and horizontal). Forty sound human premolar teeth collected from the orthodontic department were divided randomly into two main groups according to the type of ceramic material (n = 20): Group A: Lithium-disilicate and Group B: Monolithic zirconia. Each group was further subdivided according to the margin design into two subgroups (n = 10): feather-edge (1) and shoulder (2) preparation designs. After digital scanning and designing, the crowns were bonded with self-adhesive resin cement. Each assembly underwent cyclic loading (1,000,000 cycles; 100 N; 1 Hz) in water and was then subjected to axial compressive loading till fracture. Failure modes were analyzed through fractographic analysis under SEM. The highest mean of fracture resistance was recorded for subgroup B1 (Zirconia with vertical preparation: 3129 N), followed by subgroup B2 (Zirconia with horizontal preparation: 2616 N). while lithium-disilicate crowns showed lower fracture values (Group A1: 1880 N, Group A2: 1512 N). One-way ANOVA test revealed statistically significant differences in fracture resistance between the two crown materials (p < 0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the vertical and horizontal preparation designs within the same material group (p > 0.05). Both zirconia and lithium-disilicate crowns demonstrated fracture strengths exceeding the level of biting forces in the premolar area, supporting the use of conservative feather-edge preparation for lithium-disilicate and zirconia crowns in posterior regions.
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.