ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
The influence of dental cavity on biomechanical stress and strain distribution: A finite element analysis.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Understanding tooth biomechanics is essential for creating effective and durable dental restorations. While intact teeth are inherently resilient, cavity preparation compromises structural integrity, increasing fracture risk. Aims: This study utilized finite element analysis (FEA), the dominant Subjects and Methods: An FEA simulation was conducted on three tooth models (intact tooth, conservative cavity, and extensive cavity) under a 565 N occlusal load. Given the nonnormally distributed data, nonparametric statistical analysis (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests) was performed. Results: The analysis revealed a direct, significant correlation between cavity size and maximum stress magnitude. The intact tooth exhibited the lowest maximum stress (96.18 MPa), which significantly increased to 165.72 MPa (conservative) and 185.32 MPa (extensive). Conversely, the maximum strain capacity was highest in the intact tooth (0.007503) and decreased in prepared teeth (0.006031 for conservative and 0.006217 for extensive), suggesting cavity preparation amplifies localized stress while reducing the tooth's overall flexibility. Conclusion: The findings confirm that cavity size is the most crucial determinant of structural risk. A conservative approach mechanically preserves tooth function. Furthermore, the lingual cusp and the cervical area were identified as the primary mechanical weak points under functional load.
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.