ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of the Effect of Chairside Adjustment Extent on the Biaxial Flexural Strength of Aged Monolithic Zirconia.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Chairside adjustment of monolithic zirconia restorations is a common clinical procedure. This study aimed to investigate how surface treatment procedures and the extent of adjustment affect the biaxial flexural strength (BFS) of monolithic zirconia after artificial aging. Methods Fifty-six disk-shaped specimens (Ø15 × 1.2 ± 0.2 mm) were milled, sintered, and glazed from zirconia blocks (Ceramill, Amann Girrbach, Koblach, Austria) according to ISO 6872:2024. The specimens were then divided into seven groups (n = 8) based on surface treatment (grinding, polishing, or reglazing) and extent of adjustment (one vs. two areas): no adjustment (G1), grinding one area (G2), grinding + polishing one area (G3), grinding + reglazing one area (G4), grinding two areas (G5), grinding + polishing two areas (G6), and grinding + reglazing two areas (G7). All specimens were hydrothermally aged in an autoclave (134 °C, 2 bar, five hours) before BFS testing (piston-on-three-ball method, crosshead speed 1 mm/min). Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05). Results The highest BFS value was recorded for group G6 (grinding + polishing two areas), whereas group G4 (grinding + reglazing one area) showed the lowest value. Both surface treatment and extent of adjustment significantly affected the BFS of monolithic zirconia specimens (p < 0.05). Grinding and polishing significantly increased BFS values, while reglazing had a significant negative effect. Conclusions Proper polishing after chairside grinding provided the best flexural strength following artificial aging, whereas reglazing may compromise the flexural strength of monolithic zirconia. The flexural strength of monolithic zirconia is significantly influenced by the extent of adjustment.
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.