ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Comparison of fracture resistance and microleakage of direct and indirect restorations in endodontically treated molars with extensive coronal loss : Comparison of endocrown restorations made by different methods in endodontically treated teeth.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the fracture resistance and microleakage of direct composite endocrowns, indirect composite endocrowns, and fiber-reinforced indirect composite endocrown restorations placed on endodontically treated mandibular molars with extensive coronal loss in vitro. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-eight mandibular molars were endodontically treated and randomly divided into three groups (n = 26): Group 1—direct composite endocrown restorations, Group 2—indirect composite endocrown restorations, and Group 3—fiber-reinforced indirect composite endocrown restorations. Following thermocycling, 13 specimens from each group were subjected to fracture resistance testing, while the remaining 13 specimens were evaluated for microleakage. Fracture loads were recorded in Newtons (N). Fracture patterns and microleakage scores were assessed. Data normality was verified using the Shapiro–Wilk test, and statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc tests (α = 0.05).
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed in fracture resistance among the groups (Group 1: 2459.2 ± 382.5 N; Group 2: 2453.7 ± 409.6 N; Group 3: 2257.3 ± 527.6 N; p > 0.05). However, indirect composite endocrown restorations (Group 2) demonstrated significantly more favorable fracture pattern scores compared with direct composite endocrowns (Group 1) (p < 0.05). Regarding microleakage, direct composite endocrowns exhibited significantly higher leakage scores than both indirect composite and fiber-reinforced indirect composite endocrown restorations (p < 0.05).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, all tested restoration types demonstrated fracture resistance values exceeding normal masticatory forces. Indirect and fiber-reinforced indirect endocrown restorations showed improved marginal sealing performance compared with direct composite endocrowns. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Fiber-reinforced indirect composite endocrowns may represent a conservative and adhesive restorative option for endodontically treated molars with extensive coronal loss. The adhesive bonding approach allows stress distribution without the need for post placement, potentially preserving remaining tooth structure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42032095What 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.