A 12-month prospective randomized controlled comparative evaluation of clinical success of esthetic flexible crowns with stainless steel crowns in primary mandibular molar teeth.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Shivani Sunder, Dinesh Rao, Sunil Panwar
{"title":"A 12-month prospective randomized controlled comparative evaluation of clinical success of esthetic flexible crowns with stainless steel crowns in primary mandibular molar teeth.","authors":"Shivani Sunder, Dinesh Rao, Sunil Panwar","doi":"10.3290/j.qi.b6541886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical success of esthetic flexible crowns with stainless steel crowns in primary molars over 12 months.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>In this randomized split-mouth pilot study, 30 children each received one SSC and one esthetic flexible crown. Clinical parameters were evaluated using modified USPHS Ryge criteria at baseline, one week, one month, three months, six months, and twelve months. Procedural time was recorded, and parental satisfaction was assessed at twelve months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on Ryge criteria, SSCs showed significantly better resistance to staining and superior surface integrity at both 6 and 12 months (p = 0.001 and p = 0.011, respectively). At 12 months, two esthetic crowns failed, while no SSC failures were recorded. None of the other evaluated clinical parameters showed statistically significant differences between the two crown types over the 12-month follow-up. The mean time required was 12.3 ± 1.53 minutes for SSCs and 10.32 ± 1.48 minutes for esthetic crowns (p < 0.001). However, this approximately two-minute difference was not clinically significant. Parental preference favored esthetic crowns for appearance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SSCs outperformed esthetic flexible crowns in key clinical parameters, and failures occurred only in esthetic crowns. While parental preference for esthetics was high, these findings suggest esthetic crowns may have higher failure rates. This pilot study highlights the need for larger, long-term trials to further assess their clinical performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":20831,"journal":{"name":"Quintessence international","volume":"0 0","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quintessence international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.b6541886","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical success of esthetic flexible crowns with stainless steel crowns in primary molars over 12 months.

Methods and materials: In this randomized split-mouth pilot study, 30 children each received one SSC and one esthetic flexible crown. Clinical parameters were evaluated using modified USPHS Ryge criteria at baseline, one week, one month, three months, six months, and twelve months. Procedural time was recorded, and parental satisfaction was assessed at twelve months.

Results: Based on Ryge criteria, SSCs showed significantly better resistance to staining and superior surface integrity at both 6 and 12 months (p = 0.001 and p = 0.011, respectively). At 12 months, two esthetic crowns failed, while no SSC failures were recorded. None of the other evaluated clinical parameters showed statistically significant differences between the two crown types over the 12-month follow-up. The mean time required was 12.3 ± 1.53 minutes for SSCs and 10.32 ± 1.48 minutes for esthetic crowns (p < 0.001). However, this approximately two-minute difference was not clinically significant. Parental preference favored esthetic crowns for appearance.

Conclusion: SSCs outperformed esthetic flexible crowns in key clinical parameters, and failures occurred only in esthetic crowns. While parental preference for esthetics was high, these findings suggest esthetic crowns may have higher failure rates. This pilot study highlights the need for larger, long-term trials to further assess their clinical performance.

美观柔性烤瓷牙与不锈钢烤瓷牙在初生下颌磨牙上临床成功的12个月前瞻性随机对照比较评价。
目的:比较美观型柔性冠与不锈钢冠在初生磨牙12个月的临床疗效。方法和材料:在这个随机的裂口先导研究中,30名儿童每人接受一个SSC和一个美观的柔性冠。临床参数采用改进的USPHS Ryge标准在基线、1周、1个月、3个月、6个月和12个月时进行评估。记录程序时间,并在12个月时评估家长满意度。结果:根据Ryge标准,SSCs在6个月和12个月时均表现出更好的耐染色性和更好的表面完整性(p = 0.001和p = 0.011)。12个月时,有2个美观冠失败,无SSC失败记录。在12个月的随访中,其他评估的临床参数均未显示两种冠型之间的统计学差异。ssc的平均修复时间为12.3±1.53分钟,美观冠的平均修复时间为10.32±1.48分钟(p < 0.001)。然而,这大约两分钟的差异没有临床意义。父母更喜欢美观的皇冠。结论:SSCs在关键临床参数上优于美观柔性冠,仅在美观冠上失败。虽然父母对美观的偏好很高,但这些发现表明美观的冠可能有更高的失败率。这项初步研究强调需要更大规模的长期试验来进一步评估其临床表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Quintessence international
Quintessence international 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
11
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: QI has a new contemporary design but continues its time-honored tradition of serving the needs of the general practitioner with clinically relevant articles that are scientifically based. Dr Eli Eliav and his editorial board are dedicated to practitioners worldwide through the presentation of high-level research, useful clinical procedures, and educational short case reports and clinical notes. Rigorous but timely manuscript review is the first order of business in their quest to publish a high-quality selection of articles in the multiple specialties and disciplines that encompass dentistry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信