evidencegaps
Primary study · included by 1 review

Fracture Resistance and Failure Modes of Cuspal-coverage Restorations Using Fiber-reinforced and Non-fiber-reinforced Materials: An In Vitro Study.

Pierce 2025 · Pierce Andrea L, Kosaraju Amar, Gedge Joseph L, et al. · The journal of contemporary dental practice · 2025

Included by

Fracture resistance of teeth restored with polyethylene fibers reinforced composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies.
Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2025 · cited as Pierce 2025 · Reference 65; Figure 3 forest plot
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
Number of unfavorable/catastrophic failures after fracture test
Polyethylene fiber-reinforced fiber post (intraradicular) vs Conventional fiber post / non-fiber-reinforced control · After fracture strength test
RD -0.50 [-0.73, -0.27]2 studies · 40 participantsGRADE not reported
Fracture resistance (N)
Polyethylene fiber-reinforced fiber post (intraradicular) vs Conventional fiber post / non-fiber-reinforced control · After fracture strength test
SMD -0.76 [-1.17, -0.35]4 studies · 160 participantsGRADE not reported

1 including review in total.