ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Fracture resistance of endocrowns produced by 3D printing and CAD-CAM blocks: a comparative assessment.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
- Three-Dimensional Printed Materials for Definitive Ceramic and Resin Restorations: A Scoping Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
introductionThis study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of leucite reinforced glass ceramic (LRC), resin nanoceramic (RNC), lithium disilicate ceramic (LDS) blocks, and printable resin (PRM) used in the production of ferrulated and non-ferrulated endocrowns for mandibular molars.
methodsA total of 108 extracted mandibular molars with homogeneous dimensions and free of fractures, cracks, or caries were included. Root canal treatment was performed using the ProTaper Next rotary file system, and canals were obturated with gutta-percha and epoxy resin sealer by the lateral compaction technique. Specimens were divided into ferrule (F; 1-mm ferrule height), non-ferrule (NF), and control groups. Digital impressions were obtained with an intraoral scanner (Cerec Primescan), and restorations were designed in CAD software (inLab CAD SW 22.4). Based on restorative materials, groups were classified as follows: LRC, RNC, LDS, and PRM for both F and NF groups, in addition to a control group of intact teeth. Restorations were fabricated either by milling (LRC, RNC, LDS) or 3D printing (PRM), and surface conditioning was performed according to manufacturers’ instructions. All restorations were cemented using a universal adhesive system and dual-cure resin cement.Fracture resistance was tested in a universal testing machine (Instron, USA) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until fracture occurred, and failure modes were classified as Type I (restoration fracture), Type II (restorable fracture involving tooth and restoration), or Type III (non-restorable fracture of tooth structure). Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v23, with significance set at P < .05.
resultsFracture resistance values varied significantly among restorative materials (P < .05); intact teeth exhibited the highest resistance, while LRC restorations showed the lowest. PRM, RNC, and LDS restorations demonstrated significantly higher resistance than LRC, and all endocrown groups exceeded maximum masticatory forces reported in the literature. Comparisons between ferrule and non-ferrule groups fabricated from the same material revealed no significant differences (P > .05). Although failure type distribution was not significantly different among groups, LRC restorations were mostly associated with type I fractures, RNC and PRM exhibited predominantly restorable fractures, and LDS showed the highest incidence of catastrophic failures.
conclusionThe RNC, PRM, and LDS groups showed higher fracture resistance than LRC, and while LRC and RNC/PRM mainly resulted in restorable fractures, LDS was associated with more catastrophic failures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Endocrowns used Leucite Reinforced Ceramic showed the lowest fracture resistance. In contrast, the fracture resistance values of all materials used are greater than the physiological chewing force value. At the same time, the presence of a ferrule did not affect the fracture resistance values.
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.