ArticleEuropean oral research2026
New monolithic post-core concept: a comparison of prefabricated and CAD-CAM fabricated post-cores.
Article in European oral research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture and pull-out strengths of various post-core systems. Materials and methods: Forty-eight endodontically treated maxillary central incisors were assigned to three post-core groups: fiber post-composite core (RelyX) (FC), prefabricated monolithic fiber post-core (FiberSite) (MF), and CAD-CAM fabricated customized monolithic zirconia post-core (InCoris ZI) (MZ). Post-core designs were standardized according to the FiberSite system. After cementation (RelyX U200), the samples were divided into two mechanical test groups-fracture strength and pull-out strength (n = 8 per subgroup). Tests were performed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and failure types were recorded. Results: For the fracture strength test, the highest values (N) were obtained in the MZ group. The difference between MF and FC was not statistically significant (p = 0.190). For the pull-out test, statistically significant differences (N) were found among all groups (p less than 0.001). The MZ group exhibited predominantly catastrophic failures in both tests, whereas the MF and FC groups mainly showed Type II and Type III failures. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the FiberSite system appears to have clinical potential for restoring severely damaged teeth. This system offers a balance of mechanical strength and favorable failure modes compared with CAD-CAM zirconia post-cores, which demonstrated catastrophic failures, and fiber post-composite cores, which exhibited lower strength 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.