ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
A Comparative Study on the Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM-Fabricated Single-Piece Post-Crowns.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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 resistance among post and core systems: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- A Comparative Study on the Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM-Fabricated Single-Piece Post-Crowns.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesRecently, CAD/CAM materials have become popular in dental clinics; however, information about their fracture resistance as post-crowns remains limited. This study compared the initial fracture resistance of potential single-piece post-crown materials made with CAD/CAM milling to sound teeth. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty freshly extracted, non-carious human central incisor teeth underwent endodontic treatment. The roots were then randomly divided into five groups based on the post systems: the control group included teeth filled only with gutta-percha. Monoblock post-crowns were made using four different systems for the other groups: LDS (IPS e.max CAD®, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic), YTZP (inCoris ZI®, Yttrium tetragonal zirconia polycrystal), RNC (Lava Ultimate®, resin-based nanoceramic), and PICN (VITA Enamic®, polymer-infiltrated ceramic network). The post-crowns were cemented with resin cement and tested with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. Data analysis used one-way ANOVA and multiple comparison post-hoc Tukey tests (α = 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences were found between the groups (p < 0.001). The control group exhibited the highest fracture resistance (749.25 ± 225.02 N). YTZP showed similar resistance to the control (p = 0.99) and LDS (447.28 ± 168.72 N, p = 0.081), but was significantly higher than RNC (343.79 ± 157.08 N, p = 0.0051) and PICN (348.78 ± 157.44 N, p = 0.0059). LDS, RNC, and PICN did not differ significantly. YTZP experienced more non-repairable fractures (5/10), while PICN predominantly failed in a repairable manner (9/10).
conclusionsAll CAD/CAM post-crowns exceeded functional loads for the anterior region. YTZP and LDS demonstrated greater strength, whereas PICN and RNC, despite being weaker, favored repairable failures-highlighting the importance of balancing strength and clinical manageability.
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.