ArticleBMC oral health2025
Fracture behavior of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with different lithium silicate-based endocrown restorations.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fracture behavior of endodontically treated premolars restored with direct and indirect restorations: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM-fabricated PMMA, PEEK, and PEKK three-unit provisional fixed dental prostheses: an in vitro comparative study.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 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
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the fracture behavior of endodontically treated maxillary first premolars restored with different lithium silicate-based endocrown restorations.
methodsThirty intact human maxillary first premolars were root canal treated. They were divided into three groups (n = 10) based on the CAD/CAM lithium silicate-based material used for endocrown fabrication: Group LD: Lithium disilicate-based ceramic (IPS e.max CAD), Group ZLS: Zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate-based ceramic (Celtra Duo), and Group ALD: Advanced lithium disilicate-based ceramic (Cerec Tessera). After adhesive cementation, all specimens underwent a thermomechanical aging process. Surviving specimens underwent fracture resistance testing, followed by analysis with stereomicroscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Data were statistically analyzed at P-value ≤ 0.05.
resultsThe mean failure load value was significantly higher for Group ALD (1853.89 ± 178.40 N) compared to Group LD (1425.57 ± 156.31 N) and Group ZLS (1364.12 ± 196.34 N). A statistically significant difference in failure mode was detected among tested groups, with more favorable fracture patterns observed within Groups ZLS and ALD.
conclusionsAll studied lithium silicate-based endocrown restorations expressed fracture load values that significantly surpassed the maximum human masticatory force reported for maxillary premolar region supporting their clinical use. Cerec Tessera endocrowns exhibited the best biomechanical behavior among tested restorative materials. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.