ArticleBMC oral health2026
Fracture resistance of translucent zirconia overlay restoration with different preparation designs.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Marginal adaptation of 3D-printed crowns: influence of preparation geometry and digitization workflow.BMC oral health · 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
backgroundThis in-vitro study was planned to evaluate the fracture load of translucent zirconia overlay restoration made with different tooth preparation designs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-two sound mandibular molars were divided into four main groups (n = 8), based on different overlay preparation designs. Group 1 anatomic cusps with chamfer finish line (ACC), group 2: flat cusp with chamfer finish line (FCC), group 3: anatomic cusp reduction with proximal steps (ACS), group 4: flat cups reduction with proximal steps (FCS). The teeth were restored using translucent monolithic zirconia (IPS e.max ZirCAD, Ivoclar, FL). Cementation was performed using adhesive resin cement. Specimens were stored in water at 37 °C for 45 days then followed by cyclic loading fatigue for 120,000 cycles. Finally, specimens were fractured under compressive load in Newton (N) using a universal testing machine. A stereo microscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM) were used to examine and categorize the failure pattern modes. Two and one-way ANOVAs and Post hoc Tukey tests were used for statistical analyses.
resultsGroup ACC demonstrated the highest fracture resistance (4371 ± 440), followed by ACS group (3995 ± 274) and FCC group (3954 ± 698), FCS group showed the lowest fracture load (3483 ± 567).
conclusionBoth cusp design and margin design affected fracture resistance. Anatomical cusp with chamfer finish line showed the highest fracture resistance.
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.