ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2025
Clinical Performance of One-Piece Molar Endocrowns Fabricated from Different Ceramic Materials: A 36-Month Retrospective Clinical Study.
Article 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. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This retrospective observational clinical study designed to assess the clinical performance and outcomes of cemented one-piece molar endocrowns (ECs) using the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at various time intervals. Additionally, patient satisfaction for cemented ECs was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Methods: Clinical data were collected from 29 participants (mean age 26.34 ± 6.99 years) who received ECs at a specialist dental center. Twenty-four ECs were constructed from lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) and five from multilayered zirconia. All patients were analyzed at each follow-up (baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months). Clinical performance was evaluated using modified USPHS criteria, and patient satisfaction was measured with a VAS. Statistical analyses included ANOVA and McNemar tests, with significance set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: After 36 months most LDGC restorations retained "Alpha" (clinically excellent) scores for marginal adaptation, color match, anatomical form, restoration integrity and retention; zirconia restorations showed a mix of Alpha and Bravo scores. Significant differences between the materials were found for color at baseline (p=0.001) and at 36 months (p=0.018) and for retention at 36 months (p=0.001). Overall patient satisfaction by VAS remained high across groups. Conclusion: Despite the limitations of a small zirconia sample, LDGC ECs showed better color matching and retention than zirconia. Zirconia is still a viable option where strength is essential. Material selection should consider esthetic demands and occlusal load. Long-term studies with larger cohorts are needed for validation.
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.