ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Biomechanical behavior of endocrowns with different axial wall heights: a finite-element study.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare endocrown restorations of mandibular first molars using four distinct preparation designs with different residual tooth heights by employing finite-element analysis. A butt joint marginal design was compared with three shoulder finish line preparations. Materials and methods: Four three-dimensional finite-element models were developed to represent different endocrown configurations. Model 1 simulated a butt joint margin design, whereas Models 2, 3, and 4 represented shoulder finish line designs with remaining tooth structure heights of 1, 2, and 3 mm, respectively. Two restorative materials, zirconia and IPS e.max® computer-aided design, were evaluated. The geometry of a healthy mandibular first molar was obtained from computed tomography data and reconstructed using SolidWorks®. Cortical and cancellous bone were modeled as coaxial cylinders. Two loading conditions were applied, i.e., a 400 N vertical load and a 200 N oblique load at 45°, both of which were directed to the buccal cusp tips and central fossa Results: Under vertical loading, the butt joint design exhibited the lowest von Mises stress values, whereas the shoulder finish line designs showed progressively higher stresses with increasing axial wall height. The butt joint design also reduced stresses in the cortical bone by up to 15% compared with the shoulder finish line designs. The choice of restorative material had minimal influence on stress distribution; however, zirconia crowns demonstrated slightly higher stress values, suggesting greater material durability Conclusion: Endocrowns with a butt joint margin demonstrated superior biomechanical behavior by minimizing stress transfer to the underlying tooth and supporting bone. The influence of the endocrown's design decreased toward the alveolar bone, while the restorative material only exerted a minor effect on the stress distribution.
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.