ArticleOpen access Macedonian journal of medical sciences2019
Comparative Evaluation of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Different Brands of Primary Molar Stainless-Steel Crowns: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes and parental satisfaction of two stainless steel crown systems in pediatric patients: a retrospective observational cohort study.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Surface roughness and wear performance of Bioflx versus stainless-steel primary crowns (an in-vitro study).BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Clinical Success of Pulpotomies Using Intermediate Restorations and Preformed Metal Crowns in the Context of a Developing Country: A Retrospective Questionnaire-Based Investigation.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Thermomechanical aging effects on vertical marginal gap and fracture resistance: a comparative study of Bioflx and traditional pediatric crowns.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Qualitative surface roughness of lithium disilicate endo-crown for pulpotomized primary molars.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is some cases of perforation and undesirable properties of some primary molars stainless steel crowns.
aimThe aim of this study was to compare the physical and mechanical properties of different commercial brands of these crowns.
methodsIn an in vitro study, 10 stainless steel tooth crowns of the second primary mandibular molars size 6 of 4 different commercial brands (a total of 280 crowns) were evaluated. These crowns were included KTR Pre-trimmed and Crimped Nichro Stainless Steel Primary Molar Crowns (KTR, China); 3M Stainless Steel Primary Molar Crowns (ESPE, St paul; USA); NuSmile SSC Pre-contoured (Inc, Houstone, TX; USA) and Kids crown (Shinghung, Seoul; Korea). Corrosion and galvanic corrosion, wear, microhardness, compressive strength, fatigue strength of crowns and weight percent of elements were investigated.
resultsThe highest rate of microhardness, compressive and Fatigue strength of the crowns were made by Nu Smile > 3M > Kids Crown > KTR respectively. The highest rate of corrosion potential in corrosion and Galvanic corrosion tests was in KTR > Kids crowns > 3M > Nu smile respectively. The order of crown wear was KTR > Kids Crown > 3M > Nu Smile respectively. The highest amount of nickel element was found in the Nu Smile crown and the highest amount of chrome in the 3M crown with a significant difference with others (p < 0.001). The KTR and Kids crowns lacked molybdenum.
conclusionThe results showed that Nu Smile crown has better physical and mechanical properties than other evaluated crowns in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.