Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Objective: Early loss of primary teeth due to caries, can cause occlusion disorders, aesthetic problems, nutritional problems, abnormal language habits, speech disorders and psychological problems temporary or permanent. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success of using prefabricated aesthetic crowns for the restoration of excessive tooth loss.
Study design: In this randomized, non-blinded clinical study a total of 45 teeth were included, primary molars and anterior teeth and requiring restoration after root canal treatment. Stainless steel(SCC), zirconia(ZC) and strip(S) crowns compared clinically, radiographically and periodontally during follow up period for 6 months. Parents were asked to fill out questionnaire at the 1st and 6th months to evaluate the satisfaction level. In addition, patients' pain and discomfort level was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) scale.
The color of crowns made it impossible to blind during clinical assessment. Thus, this study was a non-blinded, randomised, and prospective clinical trial.
Sample size: This study included 20 maxillary anterior and 25 posterior teeth that required restoration due to excessive material loss. The study groups were:
Zirconia crown(ZC) restoration on the primary central and lateral tooth with root canal treatment (n = 10), strip crown(S) restoration on the primary central and lateral tooth with root canal treatment (n = 10), Zirconia crown(ZC) restoration on primary teeth with root canal treatment (n = 12), Stainless-steel crown(SSC) restoration on primary teeth with root canal treatment (n = 13).
Clinical Procedure:
Assessment
Clinical assesment: Table 1 Gingival scores: Löe and Silness Gingival Index(GI)[Löe, 1967].
Periapical radiographic evaluation: Preoperative and every follow up visit. (Radiographic assesment: Table 2)
Intraoral photos (standard method): before treatment, after treatment and at every follow-up visit.
Crown restoration: All caries were removed after administration of local anaesthesia and proper isolation. Calcium hydroxide/iodoform paste (Vitapex®) pulpectomy was performed according to the guideline. Teeth were restored with a composite resin Nova Resin (IMICRYL®, Konya, Turkey) and glass ionomer cement (MERON®, Voco, Germany) was used as a base material. Strip Crown Forms (3M-ESPE, St. Paul,Minnesota, USA) were used to restore teeth group SC. ZC group (NuSmile, Houston, Tex. the USA) and SCC(3M ESPE, Minnesota, USA) used.
Visual analogue scale(VAS): 0-2: no pain/discomfort 4-6:moderate 8-10: high pain/discomfort.
The child was asked to choose his/her feelings about the tooth after the procedure and in follow-up appointments. Parents were asked to complete their satisfaction surveys, including the post-op and 6-month controls for patient satisfaction assessment.
Statistical Method:
IBM® SPSS® Statistics V23 analysed data. The Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests were used for intergroup comparisons within the anterior and posterior regions. The Friedman and Cochrane Q tests were used for intra-group time-wise comparisons. Analysis results were presented as the median (q1-q3) and frequency (percentage). P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Table 1: Clinical assesment
Crown retention 0= yes 1= no
Individual modified gingival index 0= healthy 1= mild gingival bleeding with a papillus 2= severe inflammation
Plaque index 0= no plaque
Color change 0 = no coloring
Buccal strip crown surface 0 = no loss 1 = less than 50% loss 2 = more than 50% loss 4 = loss of the entire surface
Surface abrasion of the antagonist teeth 0= no abrasion
Position of the crowns regarding gingival margin 0= subgingival
1= supragingival
Occlusion 0= contact (marked or superficial) 1= no contact
Condition of the antagonistic tooth 0= natural tooth
Location on the arch curve 0= normal alignment
Proximal contacts 0= good (floss passing)
1= weak, no contact
Table 2. Postoperative Radiographic Evaluation Criteria and Scores Radiographic evaluation of crown margins 0=good adaptation, continuity in crown contractions
Radiographic evaluation 0= healthy, no pathology
Radiographic evaluation of pulpal treatment 0=appropriate root treatment
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Active Comparator | Zirconia crown anterior (NuSmile, Houston, Texas, USA). |
|
| Group 2 | Active Comparator | Zirconia crown posterior (NuSmile, Houston, Texas, USA). |
|
| Group 3 | Active Comparator | Stainless steel crown (3M-ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) |
|
| Group 4 | Active Comparator | Strip Crown (3M-ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA) |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dental Crown | Other | Pediatric size dental crown; restore damaged tooth to its normal shape, size, and function. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Visual examination | The incidence of crown retention, gingival index, marginal crown localisation | 6 months follow up period |
| Radiographic evaluation | Periapical film: the rate of radiolucency. According to the index, each tooth was categorized as having a normal periapical structure (score 1), small changes in bone structure (score 2), changes in bone structure with some mineral loss (score 3), periodontitis with well-defined radiolucent areas (score 4), or severe apical periodontitis with exacerbating features (score 5) | 6 months follow up period |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Questionaire | A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): no pain (0-4 mm), mild pain(5-44 mm), moderate pain (45-74 mm), and severe pain (75-100 mm) | 6 months follow up period |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erciyes University | Kayseri | 38039 | Turkey (Türkiye) |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30343392 | Background | Walia T, Brigi C, KhirAllah ARMM. Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of posterior primary zirconia crowns. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019 Feb;20(1):33-40. doi: 10.1007/s40368-018-0382-4. Epub 2018 Oct 20. | |
| 31648670 | Background | Seminario AL, Garcia M, Spiekerman C, Rajanbabu P, Donly KJ, Harbert P. Survival of Zirconia Crowns in Primary Maxillary Incisors at 12-, 24- and 36-Month Follow-Up. Pediatr Dent. 2019 Sep 15;41(5):385-390. |
Not provided
Not provided
individual participant data (IPD) that underlie results
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D003442 | Crowns |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D017266 | Dental Prosthesis |
| D011476 | Prosthodontics |
| D003813 | Dentistry |
| D019736 | Prostheses and Implants |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| 32165959 | Background | El Makawi Y, Khattab N. In Vitro Comparative Analysis of Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate Endocrown and Prefabricated Zirconium Crown in Pulpotomized Primary Molars. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 Dec 13;7(23):4094-4100. doi: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.864. eCollection 2019 Dec 15. |
| 29569449 | Background | Sonbol HN, Al-Bitar ZB, Shraideh AZ, Al-Omiri MK. Parental-caregiver perception of child oral-health related quality of life following zirconia crown placement and non-restoration of carious primary anterior teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2018 Mar;19(1):21-28. doi: 10.23804/ejpd.2018.19.01.04. |
| 29395008 | Background | Lee JH. Guided tooth preparation for a pediatric zirconia crown. J Am Dent Assoc. 2018 Mar;149(3):202-208.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.08.048. Epub 2018 Feb 1. |
| D004864 |
| Equipment and Supplies |