Trial reportEvidence-based dentistry2026
Do sleep bruxism patients experience higher complication or failure rates with monolithic lithium disilicate or zirconia molar crowns?
Trial report in Evidence-based dentistry, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onBomicke W, Schmitter M, Waldecker M, et al. Ceramic crowns and sleep bruxism: 3-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Dent 2026;170:106691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2026.106691 .
designProspective randomized controlled clinical trial with a 3-year follow-up evaluating the influence of Sleep Bruxism (SB) on the clinical performance of monolithic ceramic molar crowns. CASE SELECTION: A total of 109 patients requiring a single molar crown were enrolled. SB diagnosis included a structured questionnaire, clinical examination, and portable electromyography device (BruxOFF). Participants were allocated into four groups: lithium disilicate with SB, lithium disilicate without SB, zirconia with SB, and zirconia without SB. Standardized crown preparation, fabrication, and cementation protocols were used. Outcomes assessed were technical complications, survival, and success rates. The study time points were 1 week, 6 months, and 1, 2, and 3 years. DATA ANALYSIS: Survival was defined as restoration remaining in situ without replacement. Success is defined as restoration without biological or technical complications. Fisher's exact test was used to compare outcomes between SB and non-SB groups, with statistical significance set at
resultsNo technical complications occurred during the 3-year observation period. Survival rates remained high across all groups (95.2-100%), while success rates ranged from 81.5% to 95.8% for both ceramic materials. No statistically significant differences were observed between SB and non-SB patients or between lithium disilicate and zirconia crowns.
conclusionsMonolithic lithium disilicate and zirconia molar crowns demonstrated favorable clinical performance over three years, and SB was not associated with increased failure or complication risk.
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.