ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Vertical grooving: The newer paradigm of the postbonding reinforcement for fragment reattachment in uncomplicated crown fractures.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vertical grooving has been proposed to overcome the concerns of refracture of fragments bonded using conventional simple reattachment protocol. However, the evidence related to its effectiveness is lacking. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the two protocols of vertical grooving for postbonding reinforcement of reattached fragments. Materials and Methods: Eighty bovine mandibular incisors were randomly allocated to four groups: intact tooth (Group I), simple reattachment (Group II), vertical groove with nonheated composite (Group III), and vertical groove with heated composite (Group IV). Fractures were simulated, fragments were reattached using standardized bonding procedures in Groups II, III, and IV, and reinforcement was performed via labial vertical grooves filled with either nonheated (Group-III) or preheated composite (50°C, 15 min) (Group-IV). All samples underwent thermocycling followed by the assessment of the force required to fracture using a universal testing machine. Results: Teeth reinforced with vertical grooves and nonheated composite (Group III) showed the highest median force required to fracture (183.39N), followed by Group IV (157.38 N). Both reinforcement protocols significantly increased the force required to fracture compared to simple reattachment ( Conclusions: Vertical groove protocol with both nonheated and heated composite significantly increased the force required to fracture the reattached fragments in teeth with uncomplicated crown fractures, as compared to the simple reattachment protocol. While preheating the composite slightly reduced strength, it was still superior to the simple reattachment, suggesting its practical utility in the clinical settings.
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.