ArticleJMIR research protocols2026
The Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored Using 3 Different Posts: Protocol for a Comparative Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endodontically treated teeth are prone to fractures due to the loss of tooth structure, caries removal, access cavity preparation, and scaling, resulting in compromised strength in the teeth. Posts are used for restoring teeth that have undergone this process, but the role of different fiber posts in resisting fractures in teeth is unclear. Customized carbon fiber posts, customized glass fiber posts, and fiber posts relined with short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC) are biomechanically efficient. SFRC is used as a relining material around the fiber post to improve adaptation to the root canal. Objective: This study aims to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with prefabricated carbon fiber posts, customized glass fiber posts, and SFRC-relined fiber posts. Methods: In the current in vitro experimental study, the post specimens will be tested on 30 extracted single-rooted human teeth. These will be similar in size. The specimens will go through endodontic treatment and preparation for the post space, after which they will be randomly assigned to groups based on the type of post system: prefabricated carbon fiber posts, customized glass fiber posts, or SFRC-relined fiber posts. These will be cemented using a dual-cured resin cement. The specimens will then be restored using a standardized core build-up and tested for fracture resistance using a universal testing machine. A compressive load will be applied to each specimen at a constant crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until fracture of the specimen occurs. The maximum load at failure will be recorded in newtons. Statistical analysis will be conducted using a 1-way ANOVA. Results: Institutional ethics approval was granted by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research in January 2025 (DMIHER[DU]/IEC/2025/543). Sample collection and specimen preparation are scheduled to begin in February 2026, with mechanical testing expected to be completed by April 2026. As of April 2025, no specimens had been tested, and data analysis had not commenced. This is a nonfunded in vitro study, and data analysis is anticipated to be completed by May 2026. The results are expected to be submitted for publication by mid-2026. Conclusions: This study is expected to generate comparative biomechanical evidence on the fracture resistance of different fiber-based post systems, potentially aiding clinicians in selecting optimal restorative strategies for endodontically treated teeth.
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.