ArticleBMC oral health2026
Influence of proximal box depth associated with deep margin elevation and restorative materials on fracture resistance and repairability of endodontically treated teeth: an in vitro study.
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
backgroundTo evaluate the effects of different restorative materials under proximal box depth conditions associated with proximal deep margin (PDM) on fracture resistance and fracture mode on fracture resistance and fracture mode of endodontically treated mandibular molars.
methodsSeventy extracted human mandibular molars were randomly assigned to seven groups (n = 10; control n = 10). Except for the control group, all specimens received standardized root canal treatment and mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavity preparation. Restorations were performed with or without PDM using a short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC), a bulk-fill composite (BFC), or a conventional resin composite (CRC). Specimens underwent 1,000 thermal cycles between 5 °C and 55 °C. Fracture resistance was measured under static loading using a universal testing machine. Fracture modes were classified as repairable or unrepairable.
resultsThe control group demonstrated significantly higher fracture resistance than all restored groups (p < 0.001). Among restored teeth, specimens restored with SFRC showed significantly higher fracture resistance than those restored with BFC (p < 0.001). Proximal cavity depth conditions associated with PDM did not significantly affect fracture resistance (p > 0.05). Fracture repairability analysis showed no significant association between restorative approach and repairability (p = 0.309).
conclusionsProximal cavity depth conditions associated with PDM did not adversely affect fracture resistance in endodontically treated mandibular molars. Short fiber-reinforced composite demonstrated superior fracture resistance compared with bulk-fill composite. These findings should be interpreted in relation to differences in cavity depth rather than the independent effect of PDM. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Restorative material selection, rather than proximal cavity depth conditions associated with PDM, is a key determinant of fracture resistance in endodontically treated molars, with fiber-reinforced composites providing a potential biomechanical advantage.
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.