Comparative Evaluation of the Survival Rates of Zirconia Crown and Stainless Steel Crown for Proximal Caries in Primary Molars: a Retrospective Study

Gahui Jeong, Nanyoung Lee, H. Shin, Suhyun Park, Myeongkwan Jih
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of the Survival Rates of Zirconia Crown and Stainless Steel Crown for Proximal Caries in Primary Molars: a Retrospective Study","authors":"Gahui Jeong, Nanyoung Lee, H. Shin, Suhyun Park, Myeongkwan Jih","doi":"10.5933/jkapd.2023.50.3.307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Due to increasing demand for aesthetics, zirconia crowns have become a popular choice for treating primary molars. However, there is limited literature available comparing the survival rates of zirconia crowns with those of other restorative materials. The objective of this study was to compare the 36-month survival rates of zirconia crowns and stainless steel crowns for proximal caries, as well as to analyze failure types associated with each crown type. Electronic medical records and radiographs of 1,061 primary molars from 498 patients treated with 2 types of prefabricated crowns at Chosun University Dental Hospital and 2 private dental clinics between 2017 and 2019 were collected and analyzed. The survival rate of zirconia crowns was found to be lower compared to that of stainless steel crowns. Regarding the groups without pulp treatment, the survival rate of stainless steel crowns was significantly higher than that of zirconia crowns. However, in the groups that received pulp therapy, no significant difference in the survival rates was observed between the two preformed crowns. Notably, abnormal root resorption or periapical lesions were identified as the primary cause of restorative failure in stainless steel crowns, whereas loss of restoration was the predominant cause in zirconia crowns. This study holds valuable implications for clinicians when selecting preformed crowns for primary molars.","PeriodicalId":22818,"journal":{"name":"THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ACADEMY OF PEDTATRIC DENTISTRY","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ACADEMY OF PEDTATRIC DENTISTRY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5933/jkapd.2023.50.3.307","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Due to increasing demand for aesthetics, zirconia crowns have become a popular choice for treating primary molars. However, there is limited literature available comparing the survival rates of zirconia crowns with those of other restorative materials. The objective of this study was to compare the 36-month survival rates of zirconia crowns and stainless steel crowns for proximal caries, as well as to analyze failure types associated with each crown type. Electronic medical records and radiographs of 1,061 primary molars from 498 patients treated with 2 types of prefabricated crowns at Chosun University Dental Hospital and 2 private dental clinics between 2017 and 2019 were collected and analyzed. The survival rate of zirconia crowns was found to be lower compared to that of stainless steel crowns. Regarding the groups without pulp treatment, the survival rate of stainless steel crowns was significantly higher than that of zirconia crowns. However, in the groups that received pulp therapy, no significant difference in the survival rates was observed between the two preformed crowns. Notably, abnormal root resorption or periapical lesions were identified as the primary cause of restorative failure in stainless steel crowns, whereas loss of restoration was the predominant cause in zirconia crowns. This study holds valuable implications for clinicians when selecting preformed crowns for primary molars.
氧化锆冠与不锈钢冠治疗初生磨牙近端龋存活率的回顾性比较研究
由于人们对美观的要求越来越高,氧化锆牙冠已经成为一种治疗磨牙的流行选择。然而,比较氧化锆冠与其他修复材料的存活率的文献有限。本研究的目的是比较氧化锆冠和不锈钢冠治疗近端龋的36个月存活率,并分析每种冠类型的失效类型。分析了2017 ~ 2019年在朝鲜大学牙科医院和2家私人牙科诊所接受2种预制冠治疗的498名患者的1061颗初生磨牙的电子病历和x线照片。与不锈钢冠相比,氧化锆冠的存活率较低。在未处理牙髓组中,不锈钢牙冠的成活率显著高于氧化锆牙冠。然而,在接受牙髓治疗的组中,两种预制冠的存活率没有明显差异。值得注意的是,异常的根吸收或根尖周围病变被认为是不锈钢冠修复失败的主要原因,而氧化锆冠修复失败的主要原因。本研究对临床医生选择原磨牙预制冠具有重要的指导意义。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信