ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2026
Comparative Finite Element Analysis of Stress Concentration in Class V Lower Premolar Cavities Differently Restored by Adhesive Dental Materials.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the stress distribution of different restorative materials in Class V restorations under varying occlusal loads using finite element analysis. Materials and Methods: A three-dimensional model of the mandibular first premolar was prepared using computer-aided design (version 4.0 SR8, United States), MIMICS, and 3-MATIC software (3-Matic Medical 13.0, Materialise NV, Belgium). The ANSYS 16.0 (2020) program was used to calculate and evaluate the displacement and stress distribution under four different applied forces at the buccal cusp tip (0.4 mm, right angles), ranging from 100 to 250 N in a restored Class V cavity using (glass ionomer cement [GIC], Activa BioActive-Restorative, and Cention40). Results: The stress values in the unrestored tooth increased progressively with the applied load, ranging from 49.23 MPa at 100 N to 123.15 MPa at 250 N. Stress concentrations in the GIC restoration were lower compared with the unrestored tooth at all load levels, with values starting at 35.00 MPa at 100 N and rising to 87.51 MPa at 250 N. Among the tested materials, Cention40 composite exhibited the lowest stress concentrations especially at 100 N (28.02 MPa), suggesting better performance under high-load conditions. Activa BioActive-Restorative showed favorable stress distribution but had slightly higher stress values compared with the other materials. Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis showed no significant differences in stress distribution among the materials ( Discussion: All the restorative materials exhibited comparable stress distribution patterns. Load intensity is the dominant factor influencing stress distribution in Class V restorations. Conclusion: Load intensity was the dominant factor influencing stress distribution in Class V restorations, while the type of restorative material played a secondary role.
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.