The corresponding author’s email is incorrect. The correct email address is: zhangzm2019@yandex.com. The publisher apologizes for the error.

In the Specimen collection and preparation subsection of the Materials and methods, there is an error in the seventh sentence of the first paragraph. The correct sentence is: In groups E1, E2 and E3, all cervical margins were set 2 mm below cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), and 1 mm below CEJ in group E4.

In the Specimen collection and preparation subsection of the Materials and methods, there is an error in the eighth sentence of the first paragraph. The correct sentence is: A 3 mm thick bulk-fill SDR flowable composite (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA) was applied in group E1, and 1.5 mm thick Filtek Z350 XT conventional resin composite (3 M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) was used in group E2, with two increments used to simulate PBE with a periodontal probe (Kang Qiao, Alton (Shanghai) Medical Instruments, Shanghai, China).

Additionally, the Specimen collection and preparation subsection of the Materials and methods incorrectly make reference to “Cerec CAD/CAM system (D4DTechnologies, Richardson, TX, USA)” and “CEREC 3D CAD-CAM unit (Sirona Dental Systems, Bensheim, Germany)”. These systems and commercial organizations were included in error and should have been omitted.

In the Fracture resistance subsection of the Results, there is an error in the third sentence of the first paragraph. The correct sentence is: Compared to group E3 (the negative control), fracture resistance level was increased significantly in groups E1 and E2 with PBE, and there was a significance between groups E1 and E2 (P = 0.010).

The Table 1 legend contains an error; the symbols * and ** were not utilized in Table 1. Please see the complete, correct Table 1 caption here.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Results of fracture resistance and fracture modes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258038.t001