ArticleBMC oral health2026
Marginal integrity of monolithic zirconia crowns in endodontically treated premolars: effects of finish line position and post and core types incorporating deep marginal elevation and crown lengthening procedures.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSufficient information is not available regarding the selection of ideal post and core types or the preferred method to access the subgingival margin to achieve optimal marginal integrity in the reconstruction of teeth with deep cervical lesions. This study aimed to evaluate how the position of the finish line and different post and core types, combined with deep marginal elevation (DME) and crown lengthening (CL) procedures, affect the marginal integrity of monolithic zirconia crowns in endodontically treated premolars.
methodsIn the present laboratory experiment, 60 endodontically treated maxillary first premolars were assigned to six groups (n = 10): composite core supported by prefabricated fiber post (FP/CC) with DME (FP/CC-DME), composite core reinforced with polyethylene fiber (PEF/CC) with DME (PEF/CC-DME), cast post and core (CPC) with DME (CPC-DME), FP/CC-CL, PEF/CC-CL, and CPC-CL. Marginal integrity was assessed at the TheraCem-core, core-tooth, TheraCem-dentin, and TheraCem-enamel interfaces. Data were analyzed statistically (α = 0.05).
resultsIn the DME approach, the lowest marginal integrity was noted at the TheraCem-core and core-tooth interfaces in the CPC group, followed by FP/CC and PEF/CC (P < 0.05). In the CL approach, there was no significant variation among the groups (P > 0.05). With FP/CC, TheraCem-core, core-tooth, and TheraCem-dentin interfaces showed comparable marginal integrity (P > 0.05). With PEF/CC, the least marginal integrity was recorded at the TheraCem-dentin interface, followed by the TheraCem-core and core-tooth interfaces. With CPC, the TheraCem-core and core-tooth interfaces showed lower marginal integrity than dentin (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe type of post and core significantly affected the marginal integrity in the DME approach (PEF/CC > FP/CC > CPC) but not in the CL approach. DME, compared with CL, increased the marginal integrity with PEF/CC, decreased the marginal integrity with CPC, and did not affect the marginal integrity with FP/CC.
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.