ArticleOdontology2026
Fracture resistance of structurally compromised maxillary premolars restored with different bulk-fill base materials and CAD/CAM milled and 3D printed hybrid composite overlays: an in vitro study.
Article in Odontology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This in vitro study investigated the influence of base material type and CAD/CAM composite overlay fabrication technique on the fracture resistance and failure patterns of structurally compromised vital maxillary premolars. Sixty sound premolars were randomly divided into five groups (n = 12). One group served as an unprepared control, while the remaining teeth received standardized mesio-occluso-distal preparations with a 2-mm cuspal reduction. The prepared specimens were restored using either a short fiber-reinforced composite base or a bulk-fill flowable composite base, capped with either milled or three-dimensional (3D) printed hybrid composite overlays. All restorations were fabricated according to manufacturers' instructions, cemented with a self-adhesive dual-cure resin cement, and subjected to artificial aging through 10,000 thermocycles between 5 °C and 55 °C. Fracture resistance was evaluated using a universal testing machine by applying a compressive load at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min with a 4-mm steel ball until failure. Failure modes were classified as favorable (restorable) when fractures occurred above the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and unfavorable (catastrophic) when fractures extended below the CEJ. Statistical analysis using two-way ANOVA and one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test showed that the overlay fabrication technique significantly affected fracture resistance (p < 0.001), whereas the type of base material had no significant influence (p > 0.05). Milled composite overlays demonstrated significantly higher fracture resistance than 3D-printed overlays. Although the difference was not statistically significant, 3D-printed restorations tended to exhibit more favorable failure patterns, while milled overlays were associated with more unfavorable fracture modes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42126495What 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.