ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Fracture Resistance of 3D-Printed Partial and Conventional Veneers.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of 3D-printed partial veneers with finish lines at three different locations and conventional full veneers with finish lines at the gingival level. All restorations were digitally designed and 3D printed using a nanoceramic filled resin specifically developed for veneer restorations.
methodsFour maxillary right central incisor typodont teeth were prepared for labial veneers with finish lines at different locations: incisal third (InT), middle portion of the middle third (MmT), lower portion of the middle third (LmT), and conventional veneer with the finish line at the gingival level (CoV). Each preparation was scanned, and 15 casts were 3D printed from each scan. A total of 60 3D-printed veneers were fabricated (n = 15 per group) using a nanoceramic-filled resin designed for veneer restorations. The restorations were cemented to the 3D-printed dies using the manufacturer's adhesive and resin cement. The specimens were artificially aged with 10,000 thermal cycles between 5 °C and 55 °C, with a dwell time of 30 s, and then loaded to failure using a universal testing machine. Fracture load values were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc test (α = 0.05). In addition, fracture patterns were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy images for descriptive purposes.
resultsThe mean fracture resistance of the 3D-printed partial and conventional labial veneers differed significantly depending on restoration design (
conclusionsThe fracture resistance of 3D-printed partial and conventional labial veneers fabricated with nanoceramic-filled resins differed according to finish line location. Conventional veneers demonstrated higher fracture resistance than all partial veneer designs. The smallest partial veneer, with the margin located in the incisal third, showed lower fracture resistance than the partial veneer designs with finish lines in the middle third.
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.