ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of simulated root canal morphology and post space depth on fracture performance of glass fiber-reinforced post-core buildups.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis in vitro study evaluated the effect of simulated root canal morphology, post space depth (PSD), and type of glass fiber-reinforced composite (GFRC) on the fracture strength and failure mode of post-core buildups. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 168 3D-printed maxillary premolar root models were allocated into 24 groups (n = 7) based on simulated canal morphology (single-circle, oval, double-circle), PSD (4 mm, 6 mm), and GFRC type (everStick, everX-flow, everX-posterior), with Itena post as the control. A standardized adhesive protocol was used, followed by GFRC application and dual-cure core buildup. Fracture strength was tested under a 45° compressive load. Failure modes were categorized as favorable (type I, II, III) or unfavorable (type IV). Data were analyzed using ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test, independent t-tests, and chi-square tests (α = 0.05).
resultsGFRC type significantly affected fracture strength (p < 0.001), whereas neither simulated canal morphology nor PSD showed a significant effect. At 4 mm PSD, everX-flow exhibited significantly lower fracture strength than Itena and everStick posts in single-circle and oval canal models (p < 0.05). At 6 mm PSD, everX-flow recorded the lowest fracture strength in single-circle canal models (p < 0.05). Failure mode was significantly influenced by PSD (p = 0.01) and GFRC type (p < 0.001). A 6 mm PSD was associated with a higher percentage of each favorable failure type compared to 4 mm PSD. EverStick and Itena posts showed the highest percentage of favorable failures.
conclusionsThe intra-canal reinforcing material is the primary determinant of the fracture performance of post-core buildups. The mechanical reinforcement materials of everStick and everX-posterior posts but not everX-flow are comparable to that of Itena post. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Everstick and everX-posterior can replace Itena posts as safe reinforcing materials in single-canaled premolars.
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.