ArticleCureus2026
Durability and Failure Modes of IPS e.max Endocrown in Endodontically Treated Molars: A 10-Year Clinical Report of Two Cases.
Article in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Restoring endodontically treated teeth (ETT) presents a common challenge in general practice. Whereas the traditional method of using dental posts and full-coverage crowns is well-established, it often runs against the minimally invasive principles of recent adhesive dentistry. A more conservative option is provided by endocrowns, which are monolithic restorations that use the pulp chamber for retention. This study evaluated the long-term clinical performance of two endocrowns (#26, #46) over 10 years. Both restorations were fabricated using the IPS e.max Press system (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, LIE) and cemented with a dual-cure resin cement. Their performance was assessed at baseline, sixth, 12, 18, 60, 84, and 120 months using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. At the sixth, 12th, 18th, and 50th-month evaluations, both endocrowns demonstrated 100% clinical success. They showed no issues with marginal adaptation, contact points, surface texture, color match, or retention. However, at the 84-month follow-up, endocrown #26 debonded and required replacement, while the restoration #46 survived until the 120-month follow-up, at which point it failed due to a buccal fracture. In conclusion, these findings indicate that while endocrowns can provide excellent short- to medium-term outcomes, their very long-term survival is challenged by the risks of debonding and fracture, underscoring the importance of meticulous case selection and adherence to adhesive protocols.
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.