Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare endocrown restorations of mandibular first molars using four distinct preparation designs with different residual tooth heights by employing finite-element analysis. A butt joint marginal design was compared with three shoulder finish line preparations. Materials and methods: Four three-dimensional finite-element models were developed to represent different endocrown configurations. Model 1 simulated a butt joint margin design, whereas Models 2, 3, and 4 represented shoulder finish line designs with remaining tooth structure heights of 1, 2, and 3 mm, respectively. Two restorative materials, zirconia and IPS e.max® computer-aided design, were evaluated. The geometry of a healthy mandibular first molar was obtained from computed tomography data and reconstructed using SolidWorks®. Cortical and cancellous bone were modeled as coaxial cylinders. Two loading conditions were applied, i.e., a 400 N vertical load and a 200 N oblique load at 45°, both of which were directed to the buccal cusp tips and central fossa . Results: Under vertical loading, the butt joint design exhibited the lowest von Mises stress values, whereas the shoulder finish line designs showed progressively higher stresses with increasing axial wall height. The butt joint design also reduced stresses in the cortical bone by up to 15% compared with the shoulder finish line designs. The choice of restorative material had minimal influence on stress distribution; however, zirconia crowns demonstrated slightly higher stress values, suggesting greater material durability . Conclusion: Endocrowns with a butt joint margin demonstrated superior biomechanical behavior by minimizing stress transfer to the underlying tooth and supporting bone. The influence of the endocrown’s design decreased toward the alveolar bone, while the restorative material only exerted a minor effect on the stress distribution.

This in vitro study evaluated the vertical marginal gap and fracture strength of four CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) ceramic materials: a hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic, Vita Zahnfabrik; VE), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Vita Suprinity, Vita Zahnfabrik; VS), Virgilite-containing lithium disilicate (Cerec Tessera, Dentsply Sirona; CT), and using lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar; Emax) as a control. A standardized all-ceramic crown preparation was conducted on a first maxillary premolar tooth. The prepared tooth was duplicated into 40 epoxy resin dies, allocated into four groups (n = 10) according to the four ceramic materials tested. The crowns' marginal gaps were measured using a metallurgical microscope. Cementation of the crowns was done using a self-adhesive resin cement, then tested to failure under a single load using a universal testing machine. The results were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) and post-hoc Tukey's honest significant difference tests. VS crowns demonstrated significantly higher (p < 0.001) marginal gap (80.14 ± 7.64 µm) than the other materials, VE (55.56 ± 7.20 µm), CT (58.20 ± 5.22 µm), and Emax (60.13 ± 3.63 µm), whereas VE (1,002.8 ± 78.9 N) showed significantly lower (p < 0.001) fracture strength value than CT (1,850 ± 90 N), Emax (1761.6 ± 101 N), and VS (1633.5 ± 149.5 N). All tested materials exhibited clinically acceptable marginal gaps and fracture strength values that exceeded the maximum reported masticatory forces. CT exhibited the highest fracture strength, while VE showed the lowest marginal gap. CT's superior fracture strength and excellent marginal fit highlight its suitability for mechanically challenging posterior restorations while maintaining marginal integrity.

STELA is a newly introduced auto-cured bulk-fill composite proposed as an alternative to amalgam. It does not require light activation and provides an unli

Introduction: Digital dentistry has transformed modern practice through CAD/CAM, intraoral scanners, and AI technologies, while robotic surgery and smart implants further enhance precision and clinical outcomes. The aim of this article is to evaluate the evolution and impact of digital dental technologies, with particular emphasis on robotic-assisted implantology and smart implant design. Methods: This study presents a narrative review of peer-reviewed articles, clinical trials, and systematic reviews published in the past five years, identified through MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Results: Robotic-assisted implant placement improves accuracy by up to 98.2%, reduces surgical errors, and shortens operative time. Smart implants promote osseointegration and lower the risk of peri-implantitis through bioelectric stimulation. In addition, digital workflows enhance diagnostic precision and shorten treatment turnaround times. Discussion: Robotic-assisted implantology and smart implant design are Robotic-assisted implantology and smart implant design are reshaping precision and longevity in modern dental practice. Robotic systems enhance surgical accuracy, reduce procedural errors, and support patient-specific planning, particularly in complex implant cases. At the same time, bioelectric smart implants actively promote tissue regeneration and help mitigate peri-implantitis, marking a shift from passive to responsive implantology. Together, these technologies point toward a transformative future for digital dentistry, although challenges related to cost, training, and regulatory validation remain critical for broader implementation. Conclusion: Advancements in digital dentistry, particularly robotics and smart implants, are transforming clinical practice by improving precision and patient outcomes. Broader integration, however, will require overcoming current limitations related to cost, accessibility, and regulatory frameworks, supported by ongoing research and professional development.