Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Wear of enamel antagonist to gradient zirconia vs full strength monolithic zirconia: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04798300 (Wear of Enamel Antagonist to Two Different Types of Monolithic Zirconia), which is not on this 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.
Wear of Enamel Antagonist to Two Different Types of Monolithic Zirconia: A Randomized Clinical Trial
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMonolithic zirconia restorations have emerged as a viable alternative to veneered zirconia restorations, eliminating the risk of veneer chipping due to their superior strength, fracture resistance, and aesthetics. New types of monolithic zirconia are becoming widely available, making it essential to clinically assess their wear behaviour and the effect on opposing enamel. PURPOSE: To evaluate the wear of enamel opposed by gradient monolithic zirconia compared to full-strength monolithic zirconia, and to assess the wear of both restorations.
methodsTwenty-six patients aged 21 to 35 years requiring a crown for endodontically treated molars were randomly divided into two groups. The comparator group (Zolid HT; Monolithic zirconia) included patients receiving full-strength monolithic zirconia crowns, while the intervention group (ZirCAD Prime; Multilayer zirconia) included patients receiving gradient monolithic zirconia crowns. After final cementation, a baseline direct scan was obtained for both arches, followed by additional scans at 6 months and 1 year post-treatment. These scans were imported into 3D software for superimposition to calculate the wear that occurred throughout the follow-up period for both restorations and the opposing enamel.
resultsAt the 6-month follow-up, the root mean square (RMS) values for Multilayer zirconia showed significantly higher wear of opposing enamel (75.6 μm) compared to Monolithic zirconia (61.18 μm), with a p-value of 0.0119. At the 1-year follow-up, Multilayer zirconia also exhibited significantly higher wear of opposing enamel (97.2 μm) compared to Monolithic zirconia (68.77 μm), with a p-value of 0.0046. Regarding restoration wear, RMS values at 6 months were comparable between Monolithic zirconia (82.65 μm) and Multilayer zirconia (72.16 μm), with a p-value of 0.6294. Similarly, at the 1-year follow-up, the RMS values remained statistically similar between Monolithic zirconia (89.47 μm) and Multilayer zirconia (73.57 μm), with a p-value of 0.4889.
conclusionGradient monolithic zirconia restorations were associated with greater enamel wear compared to Monolithic zirconia restorations, and the difference in wear depth became statistically significant over time. In terms of restoration wear, both types exhibited comparable material wear.
trial registrationThis study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov with ID no. NCT04798300 on 28/1/2021.
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.