ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of endocrown design modification on retention & microleakage: 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, conservative approaches in prosthodontics have gained attention, especially with the use of endocrowns that preserve tooth structure and utilize retention through the pulp chamber. AIM OF THE STUDY: This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of modifying endocrown preparation design on retention and microleakage using Vita Enamic blocks in mandibular premolars.
methodsForty sound human mandibular premolars were treated endodontically and divided into two equal groups (n = 20) according to preparation design: group1: conventional design, and group2: with added buccal groove design. Then each group was further subdivided into 2 equal subgroups (n = 10) according to intra-radicular extension: subgroup A: 3 mm; subgroup B: 5 mm intraradicular extensions. Each subgroup was further subdivided randomly into 2 classes (n = 5) according to the testing procedure. One class (n = 5) was subjected to a retention test using a universal testing machine. The other class (n = 5) was subjected to microleakage testing by soaking in 2% methylene blue in an incubator at room temperature for 24 h. All samples were assessed using a digital microscope to evaluate the extent of dye penetration and modes of failure.
resultsRetention testing revealed no statistically significant difference between the two preparation designs within both intraradicular extension subgroups. However, increased intra-radicular extension 5 mm significantly enhanced retention compared to 3 mm in both designs (p < 0.001). Regarding microleakage, the buccal groove design showed significantly lower values than the conventional design in both subgroups (p = 0.015 and p < 0.001, respectively). A significant difference between the two extensions was observed in the conventional group only, with higher microleakage in the 3 mm subgroup (p < 0.001), while no significant difference was found in the buccal groove group (p = 0.189).
conclusions5 mm intra-radicular extension significantly improved the retention of the endocrowns, performing better than 3 mm, while the buccal groove design enhanced retention and resulted in lower microleakage.
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.