ArticleBMC oral health2026
The effect of fiber bundle posts used with different core materials on fracture resistance: an in vitro study.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the effects of fiber bundle posts and conventional fiber posts combined with different core materials on fracture resistance.
methodsA total of 60 extracted human maxillary incisors with single-root, single-canal morphology were included in this in vitro study. The crowns were sectioned at the cementoenamel junction to standardize the root length to 15 ± 0.5 mm. Following working length determination, biomechanical preparation was performed up to size 35/0.04, and the canals were obturated using 35/0.04 gutta-percha cones. Post space preparation was performed using a #3 Gates-Glidden drill while maintaining a 5-mm apical seal of gutta-percha. The specimens were randomly allocated into two experimental groups according to the post system used (n = 26): fiber posts and fiber bundle posts. Each group was further subdivided into two subgroups based on the core build-up material applied (n = 13): a condensable microhybrid composite resin or a flowable microhybrid composite resin supplied with the fiber bundle post system. Additionally, four specimens were assigned to the positive control group and four to the negative control group. All specimens were embedded in acrylic resin blocks and subjected to fracture resistance testing using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.
resultsAlthough there was no significant difference in fracture resistance between post types in the specimens using flowable microhybrid composite cores (p = 0.72), a significant difference was observed between post types in the groups using condensable microhybrid composite (p < 0.01). When fracture lines were assessed, the most reparable group was observed in specimens using fiber bundle posts and flowable microhybrid composite cores (62%).
conclusionsWhilst the choice of post type directly affects fracture resistance when using condensable composite core materials, this difference is eliminated with flowable microhybrid composites. Furthermore, the combination of fibre bundle posts with flowable microhybrid composites provides the highest reparable fracture rate. For these reasons, from a clinical application perspective, fibre bundle posts have yielded more favourable results in terms of preserving dental tissue. These findings require support from in vivo studies to establish their clinical validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42919295What 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.