ArticleOdontology2026
Comparison of fracture resistance of ceramic crowns supported by different abutment types.
Article in Odontology, 2026. 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
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of monolithic zirconia crowns and lithium disilicate crowns cemented on multi-unit, Ti-base and titanium copings on multi-unit abutments. 66 dental implants were embedded in auto-polymerizing acrylic resin. Three different types of abutments were used: Ti-base, multi-unit, and titanium coping abutments on multi-unit bases (n = 22/group). The specimens were subgrouped according to two different restorative materials: monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate (n = 11/group). All of the crowns were screw-retained and the screws were tightened to the manufacturer's recommended tightening values. The specimens were subjected to cyclic loading of 50 N at 2 Hz for 100.000 cycles in distilled water and thermocycling between 5 °C and 55 °C for 5.000 cycles. Then, maximum fracture load was measured using a universal testing machine, and fracture patterns were examined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test. According to the results, there was a statistically significant difference between the types of abutments (p < 0.05). Additionally, significant differences were detected between the types of crown materials, with zirconia showing higher values than lithium disilicate (p < 0.05). Besides, all failures occurred as cohesive fractures within the crown material, no abutment or screw damage was observed. In conclusion, the abutment type and the material affected crown mechanics, with monolithic zirconia showing higher fracture resistance than lithium disilicate crowns. Furthermore, differences in abutment design affected the structural integrity of the restorations, underlining the importance of component selection in clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41484658What 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.