ReviewOdontology2026
Biomechanical effects of cavity preparation and restorative procedures on strain and bite force distribution in posterior teeth: a systematic review of experimental studies.
Review in Odontology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To systematically evaluate the biomechanical effects of cavity preparation and restorative procedures on cuspal strain, deflection, and load distribution in posterior teeth, while critically appraising methodological quality in experimental and computational models. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251247979). Eligibility criteria included in vitro investigations on human posterior teeth evaluating primary biomechanical outcomes across varying cavity designs and restorative interventions. A comprehensive literature search was conducted through December 2025 across PubMed, Scopus, and Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source (EBSCO). Out of 612 identified records, 18 studies met the full eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Cavity geometry and the extent of structural loss showed the most consistent association with increased cuspal strain and deformation across the included studies, while restorative materials, polymerization behavior, fiber reinforcement, and endodontic access design further modified the biomechanical response. Adhesively bonded restorations, bulk-fill systems, and selected fiber-reinforced strategies generally reduced cuspal deformation compared with non-adhesive restorations or conventional incremental approaches, although their effects varied according to material composition and placement protocol. However, these interventions did not fully offset the structural compromise caused by marginal ridge loss. While most studies demonstrated acceptable methodological quality, reporting gaps remain regarding sample size calculation and standardized aging protocols. Future research should prioritize dynamic in vivo loading models and advanced computational analyses incorporating proximal contacts and antagonist teeth to better translate biomechanical trends into clinical longevity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42830349What 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.