ArticleCureus2024
Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Prepared With Biologically Oriented Preparation Technique Versus Horizontal Finish Lines: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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
introductionThe biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT) is a conservative tooth preparation method with no defined finish lines. Studies comparing the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) prepared using BOPT or horizontal finish lines are lacking. The primary objective of this study was to compare the fracture resistance of ETT prepared using BOPT, chamfer finish line, or shoulder finish line and restored with monolithic zirconia (MZ) crowns. The secondary objective was to determine the modes of fracture of ETT with different finish lines.
methodsForty-five maxillary premolar teeth were endodontically treated and randomly allotted to three tooth preparation methods: Group 1, BOPT; Group 2, chamfer finish line; and Group 3, shoulder finish line. MZ crowns were milled and cemented on their respective tooth preparations. The fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine. Maximum fracture load was recorded in Newtons (N). The fracture modes were classified using Burkey's codes and a newly proposed fracture grading.
resultsThe highest fracture resistance was seen in samples from Group 1, followed by Group 2, and the least in Group 3. Tukey's post hoc test showed a significant difference between Group 1 and Group 3 (p<0.05) and between Group 2 and Group 3 (p<0.05). No significant differences were found between Group 1 and Group 2 (p>0.05). Code V and Grade 3B fractures were highest in Group 3 samples.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that ETT prepared with BOPT and chamfer finish lines had the greatest fracture resistance compared to shoulder finish lines. Teeth prepared with shoulder finish lines had more non-restorable fractures compared to BOPT or chamfer preparations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.