ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2025
Survival and Success Rate of Restoration Post Endodontic Treatment.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adherence to endodontic treatment protocols in the clinical practice of Lithuanian dentists and endodontists-cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- The effect of different surface treatment methods on the pull-out bond strength of PEEK endocrowns.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Three-dimensional-printed endocrowns: Does increasing intracoronal depth improve strength at the expense of fracture severity?Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of different post materials on stress distribution in endodontically treated teeth: Implications for prosthodontic restorations.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Effect of crown-root ratio in endo-perio treated teeth restored with prosthodontic crowns.Bioinformation · 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
Introduction: Dental restoration following endodontic treatment aims to restore tooth function, aesthetics, and strength compromised by caries or trauma. Loss of tooth structure post-treatment can reduce strength by up to 60%, increasing fracture risk. Restoration choice depends on remaining tooth structure, coronal sealing, retention, and occlusal factors. Direct restorations suit minimal damage, while indirect options like crowns or endocrowns address significant structural loss. Objective: To evaluate the durability and success of post-endodontic restorations through a scoping review focused on remaining tooth structure, restoration techniques, materials, and post use. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus, following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Included studies were randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and case-control studies published in English within the last five years. In vitro studies, non-randomized clinical trials, and literature reviews were excluded. Results: From 353 articles, 14 met inclusion criteria. The studies found that indirect restorations exhibited higher success rates (63% to 91.61%) than direct restorations (43.2% to 86.7%). This finding attributed to the inherent advantages of indirect approach. Indirect restorations demonstrated higher 3-year survival rates (82.7 to 99.1%) than direct restorations (75 to 97.6%). Among these, full-coverage crowns were superior, due to their enhanced fracture resistance, ferrule effect, and stress distribution while direct resin composites suffice when adequate tooth structure remains. Direct restorations are recommended for endodontically treated teeth that still have two or more intact coronal walls, as their prognosis and success rates are quite good for both anterior and posterior teeth. Glass-fiber posts reduce root fracture risk compared to metal posts; however, outcomes depend on post design and occlusal load. Conclusion: The long-term success of post-endodontic restorations depends on multiple factors, with remaining tooth structure being paramount. Evidence shows a clear hierarchy: indirect restorations, particularly full-coverage crowns (FCCs), demonstrate superior success and survival rates due to their fracture resistance and effective stress distribution. Direct composites are only viable with substantial remaining tooth structure (≥2 intact walls). Glass-fiber posts are preferred over metal posts to reduce fracture risk. Ultimately, a ferrule-effect-based, tailored approach that matches biomechanical demands to clinical conditions is essential for optimal outcomes.
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.