ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Fractured Teeth Reattached Using Different Preparation and Restoration Techniques: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionThe restoration of fractured anterior teeth remains a clinical challenge because an ideal technique should preserve tooth structure while providing adequate mechanical strength and esthetic outcomes. Although fragment reattachment is a conservative approach, various preparation designs have been proposed to improve fracture resistance, and evidence comparing their performance remains limited. Our aim was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of Ellis Class II fractured maxillary central incisors restored using bevel preparation, single groove preparation, double-groove preparation, and direct composite build-up techniques. METHODOLOGY: This in vitro experimental study included 40 extracted permanent maxillary central incisors, which were randomly allocated into four groups (
resultsFracture resistance differed significantly among the four groups (
conclusionsDirect composite build-up exhibited the highest fracture resistance among the evaluated restorative techniques. Among the fragment reattachment methods, double-groove preparation provided superior reinforcement and may represent the preferred conservative technique when a fractured fragment is available.
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.