SynthesisClinical and experimental dental research2026
Preservation of Dental Structure in Prosthetic Restorations: Vertical and Horizontal Preparation Techniques. Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental dental 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCrown preparation leads to irreversible dental tissue loss, which affects long-term restoration success. The advantages of horizontal (chamfer) versus vertical preparation techniques (BOPT, BOPTm) remain debated. This systematic review evaluates which method is most conservative regarding dental structure removal and examines their clinical indications, advantages, and limitations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis systematic review followed the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA 2020 guidance. The electronic search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science for studies published between 2012 and 2023. The PROSPERO record (CRD420251161178; registered on 06 October 2025) was retrospective. Clinical studies, in vitro/ex vivo investigations and contextual narrative sources were included for different purposes. The >=6-month follow-up criterion was applied only to longitudinal clinical outcome studies; laboratory and descriptive studies were included only for mechanistic or contextual evidence. The primary outcome was direct or indirect quantification of tooth-structure removal. Secondary outcomes included periodontal health, function, tooth morphology, esthetics, and pulpal implications. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE methodology.
resultsTwenty-three studies were included. Six studies directly quantified tooth-structure removal or residual dentin thickness using gravimetric analysis, micro-CT, digital volumetric analysis, or related methods. Across studies that compared preparation geometries at a comparable margin level, BOPT was generally more conservative than BOPTm; however, supragingival or juxtagingival horizontal chamfer preparations remained the most conservative option when margins could be maintained outside or at the gingival sulcus. Periodontal advantages of BOPT were mainly reported for subgingival clinical scenarios.
conclusionsThe apparent difference between vertical and horizontal preparations is scenario-dependent. When a subgingival restorative margin is required, BOPT may preserve more tooth structure than BOPTm and may offer favorable periodontal behavior compared with subgingival horizontal preparations. When margins can be placed supra- or juxtagingivally, horizontal chamfer preparations remain the most conservative and clinically predictable approach.
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.