ArticleCureus2025
Fracture and Crack Behavior of Weakened Incisors Restored With Fiber Posts, Polyethylene Reinforcement, or 3D-Printed Endocrowns.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Post-and-Core Buildup Techniques with Short Fiber-Reinforced Composite and Polyethylene Fiber: In Vitro Evaluation of the Fracture Load and Mode of Failure.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background To evaluate the biomechanical performance of weakened maxillary incisors restored with glass fiber posts (GFPs), polyethylene fiber reinforcement, or CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) endocrowns (ECs), focusing on fracture resistance, failure mode, and crack formation after thermomechanical aging. Methods Fifty maxillary central incisors were allocated into five groups (n = 10): sound tooth (ST, control); glass fiber post (GFP) + CAD/CAM crown; polyethylene fiber in a "U" pattern (PFU) + CAD/CAM crown; polyethylene fiber in a "C" pattern (PFC) + CAD/CAM crown; and CAD/CAM EC. All experimental groups underwent root canal treatment and weakening. Specimens were subjected to 1.4 million thermomechanical cycles and loaded to fracture. Fracture mode was examined under stereomicroscopy, and cracks were analyzed via micro-CT. Fracture resistance (N) was analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's HSD (α = 0.05), while failure and crack types were compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results ST had the highest fracture resistance (990.8 ± 107.8 N), followed by PFC (800.5 ± 139.1 N). PFU (649.4 ± 146.8 N) and GFP (616.6 ± 122.3 N) showed intermediate values; EC had the lowest (461.1 ± 146.3 N). Most failures were favorable, but 30% of EC samples failed catastrophically. PFC and PFU preserved more crack-free roots (70% and 60%), while GFP exhibited multiple vertical cracks. Conclusion Polyethylene fiber reinforcement, regardless of fiber orientation, significantly improves fracture resistance and reduces root cracking in endodontically treated incisors. This technique may provide a reliable alternative to fiber posts and CAD/CAM ECs in the restorative dentistry of anterior teeth.
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.