ArticleJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2026
Fatigue Survival of Lithium Disilicate, 3D-Printed Composite, and Injection-Molded Direct Composite Veneers.
Article in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 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
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate and compare the fatigue performance of veneers fabricated from lithium disilicate, 3D-printed resin composite, and injection-molded direct resin composite under standardized cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty extracted human maxillary central incisors (n = 10 per group) received standardized veneer preparations. Veneers were fabricated using CAD/CAM milling (lithium disilicate), additive manufacturing (3D-printed resin composite), or injection molding (direct composite). Specimens were adhesively bonded following manufacturer protocols, thermocycled (10,000 cycles) and subjected to cyclic fatigue loading (200 N, 1.6 Hz) for up to 1,000,000 cycles. Fatigue survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests.
resultsSignificant differences in survival distributions were observed (p < 0.001). Lithium disilicate showed the highest fatigue performance, with 80% survival at 1,000,000 cycles and a mean survival of 954,060 cycles. 3D-printed resin composite showed the lowest survival (mean: 134,878 cycles), while direct resin composite exhibited intermediate performance (mean: 460,453 cycles). Failure modes varied by material, with lithium disilicate demonstrating debonding, 3D-printed resin presenting multiple failure types, and direct composite limited to incisal fractures.
conclusionsLithium disilicate demonstrated superior fatigue performance compared with resin-based materials. Injection molded direct composite performed better than 3D-printed resin composite with more repairable fractures. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although lithium disilicate restorations remain the most durable material choice for anterior veneers, injection molded direct composites offer an economical option with possibly repairable fractures.
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.