ArticleBMC oral health2025
Fracture resistance of CAD/CAM-milled, 3D-printed, and customized fiber post-and-core systems: an in vitro study.
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.
- Comparative Evaluation of Push-Out Bond Strength Between CAD/CAM-Milled and Anatomically Customized Fiber Posts: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Fracture strength of roots restored with relined and milled glass fiber posts.Frontiers 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-and-core systems are frequently used when restoring endodontically treated teeth. CAD/CAM technologies contribute to post fabrication by improving material uniformity and adaptation to canal morphology. Additionally, 3D printing presents an emerging approach that constructs posts incrementally and may address certain limitations associated with traditional fabrication methods. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of custom-made CAD/CAM posts and cores fabricated using milling and additive techniques compared to customized fiber posts. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-one maxillary central incisors were randomly divided into three groups (n = 7): Group MP (milled posts), Group 3D (3D printed posts), and Group CF (customized fiber posts). The teeth were embedded in acrylic resin and prepared endodontically. Post spaces were created using standardized drills. For Groups MP and 3D, the post spaces were scanned, and posts were fabricated using CAD/CAM technology and 3D printing. In Group CF, posts were customized with resin composite. All posts were cemented with resin cement. The specimens were subjected to thermocycling for 5,000 cycles. Fracture resistance was measured using a universal testing machine, and failure modes were examined with a stereomicroscope. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the three groups. Failure mode data were reported as frequencies and percentages. Fisher's Exact test was used to compare failure modes among the three groups.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in fracture resistance among the three groups (p = 0.400) or in failure modes (p = 0.381). The 3D group exhibited the highest percentage of restorable failures (85.7%), while the Milled group showed the highest percentage of non-restorable failures (57.1%).
conclusionsAll post types demonstrated comparable fracture resistance and favorable failure modes when restoring anterior endodontically treated teeth. Milled composite blocks and 3D-printable materials effectively produced one-piece post-and-core structures using CAD/CAM technology with fracture resistance falling within the typical masticatory forces for maxillary 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.