ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM Resin-Matrix Ceramic Overlays and Full-Coverage Crowns for Maxillary Premolars.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fracture Resistance of 3D-Printed Partial and Conventional Veneers.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCAD-CAM technology enables biomimetic dentistry by producing highly accurate, minimally invasive restorations that replicate the biomechanical behavior of intact teeth. This study evaluated the fracture resistance of overlays with margins at different supragingival levels, including a flat occlusal design and compared them with conventional full crowns. All restorations were fabricated from chairside CAD/CAM resin-matrix ceramic for maxillary premolars. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty-four CAD/CAM resin-matrix ceramic restorations were fabricated and randomly assigned to four groups (n = 16): (1) overlay with a margin 2 mm above the gingiva (Ov2m); (2) overlay with a 4 mm supragingival margin (Ov4m); (3) overlay with a 4 mm margin and flat occlusal surface (OvF4m); and (4) full-coverage crown with a gingival-level margin (FCC). Preparations were standardized by one operator. Restorations were adhesively cemented to resin dies, thermocycled 10,000 times (5-55 °C), and loaded to failure in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc tests (α = 0.001).
resultsAmong overlays, Ov2m showed the highest fracture resistance (1605 ± 88 N), followed by Ov4m (1403 ± 63 N). OvF4m recorded the lowest value (1257 ± 73 N). FCC exhibited the greatest overall resistance (1838 ± 106 N), significantly higher than that of any overlay group.
conclusionsOverlays with margins 2 mm above the gingiva had higher fracture resistance than those with more coronal margins or flat occlusal designs. Full-coverage crowns showed the greatest strength, highlighting the impact of margin position and preparation design on restoration performance.
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.