ArticleBMC oral health2026
Marginal and internal fit and fracture resistance of lithium disilicate laminate veneers for teeth with proximal cavities: an in-vitro comparative 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe management of proximal cavities under porcelain laminate veneers remains a clinical challenge. Conventional strategies-such as placing an intermediate composite restoration or extending the preparation-require additional steps or sacrifice healthy tooth structure. While the literature reports conflicting findings on whether composite substrates affect veneer longevity, a comprehensive biomechanical evaluation of a monolithic veneer design that directly incorporates the proximal cavity has not been reported. This in-vitro study compared the marginal fit, internal adaptation, and fracture resistance of lithium disilicate laminate veneers fabricated for three substrate conditions: an intact tooth, a tooth with a proximal composite restoration, and a monolithic veneer with an integrated proximal cavity.
methodsThirty-six maxillary central incisor typodont teeth were divided into three groups (n = 12): control (intact tooth), composite restoration, and integrated cavity. Standardized proximal cavities were prepared in the latter two groups; the composite restoration group received a composite restoration prior to veneer fabrication, while the integrated cavity group had the cavity incorporated directly into the veneer design. Lithium disilicate laminate veneers were fabricated using a CAD/CAM system. Marginal and internal fit were evaluated at 19 points per specimen using a silicone replica technique examined under stereomicroscopy. Fracture resistance was assessed in a universal testing machine with a load applied at a 135° angle. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05).
resultsThe integrated cavity group exhibited a statistically significantly larger marginal gap at the proximal margin compared to the control and composite restoration groups (p<0.001). A corresponding significant increase in cement gap thickness was observed in the mesial internal region of the integrated cavity group. No significant differences were detected at any other marginal or internal measurement points. Fracture resistance did not differ significantly among the three groups (p = 0.516), and the integrated cavity group recorded the highest mean fracture resistance value.
conclusionsIncorporating a proximal cavity directly into a monolithic laminate veneer design compromised marginal and internal fit in the cavity region but did not negatively affect overall fracture resistance. This preliminary proof-of-concept is promising; however, validation through thermomechanical aging and clinical trials is essential before routine application.
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.