SynthesisBrazilian dental journal2026
Mechanical behavior of endocrown vs. post-and-crown: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.
Synthesis in Brazilian dental journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-regression analysis compared the load-to-fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with endocrown and post-and-crown restorations, identifying factors influencing their mechanical behavior. Literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and LILACS included studies published until September 2025. The search strategy combined Medical Subject Headings and free-text keywords. Two independent researchers performed the study selection. The eligibility criteria considered in vitro studies that evaluated the load-to-fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with endocrowns and had a control group consisting of teeth restored with post-and-crown. From 862 studies, 25 met the eligibility criteria. The final meta-regression model explained 86% of the within-group variance, showing no significant differences in the load-to-fracture between endocrowns and post-and-crown restorations (p>0.05). The type of teeth, ferrule presence, and restoration material did not significantly influence the outcomes, whereas luting material and load application angle were critical determinants of load-to-fracture performance. Resin composite significantly increased the load-to-fracture compared to conventional resin cement (p<0.05). Oblique forces during mechanical tests reduced the load-to-fracture values (p<0.05). In conclusion, similar load-to-fracture performance is expected between endocrown and post-and-crown restorations. Luting material and mechanical testing parameters influenced outcomes and may have contributed to heterogeneity in prior meta-analyses.
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.