ArticlePeerJ2026
Fracture load and failure patterns of zirconia and 3D-printed resin endocrowns: an
Article in PeerJ, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endodontically treated teeth are more prone to fracture and often require durable restorative solutions. Endocrowns offer a conservative alternative to conventional post-and-core systems. This Materials and methods: Eighteen extracted human molars were endodontically treated and standardized, then prepared for endocrown restorations using a uniform design (two mm occlusal reduction with a four mm intracoronal extension). Specimens were randomly assigned to receive either Computer-Aided Design (CAD)/ Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM) milled zirconia (ZR) or 3D-printed resin-based endocrowns fabricated from VarseoSmile Crown Plus (VS) ( Results: Statistical analysis revealed a highly significant difference in fracture load between the two groups ( Conclusion: The ZR group showed substantially higher fracture load, but failures more frequently involved tooth structure. VS group exhibited lower strength, yet a higher proportion of simple, potentially repairable fractures confined to the restoration, highlighting a tradeoff between maximum load capacity and repairability. Within the limitations of this
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.