ArticleBMC oral health2026
Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored by lithium silicate-based and hybrid ceramic partial coverage restorations with different preparation designs: a scoping review.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
backgroundCeramic partial coverage restorations (PCRs) are minimally invasive treatment options for complex tooth damage. This study aimed to review the fracture resistance and fracture patterns of non-endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with PCRs using various restoration types (overlay, onlay, etc.), preparation designs, and two ceramic groups (lithium silicate-based and hybrid ceramic materials).
methodsThree databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect) were used to search for specific key terms according to the PRISMA diagram. Finally, 34 articles were included for analysis. The fracture resistance and fracture patterns were summarized, and RoBDEMAT was used to assess the risk of bias.
resultsWith ≥ 1 mm restorative occlusal thickness irrespective of materials, premolars restored with PCRs exhibited vertical fracture loads ranging from 682 to 1,954 N, which were lower than those of molars with a similar condition (1,024 to 4,995 N). Molars restored with 1–2 mm-thick lithium-silicate-based overlays and MOD preparation tended to have lower ranges of vertical-load fracture resistance [lithium disilicate (LDS): 1,295-1,326 N; zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS): 2,066 − 2,189 N] compared to overlays without MOD retention [LDS: 1,406-4,995 N; ZLS: 2,177-2,738 N]. However, the effect of the MOD box was less significant in premolars. Increasing occlusal thickness tended to enhance fracture resistance, but interactions with other factors (e.g., preparation design, ceramic type, and bonded dental substrate) altered the results. Adding proximal boxes or MOD preparation increased the risk of severe fractures. Hybrid ceramics for PCRs showed promising tooth fracture loads under certain conditions, but their fracture resistance compared to LDS remained controversial.
conclusionsAlthough MOD overlays may decrease the load-bearing capacities of tooth-restoration assemblies compared to anatomic overlays in some conditions, the overall fracture loads for both restoration types always exceeded maximum bite forces. Considering other relevant factors will help clinicians design the appropriate restoration type for each clinical situation.
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.