ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2022
Clinical Evaluation of CAD/CAM Ceramic Endocrown Versus Prefabricated Zirconia Crown in the Restoration of Pulpotomized Primary Molars: A Two-Year Spilt-Mouth Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Fracture resistance and failure-modes of endocrowns with two margin designs (butt versus shoulder) in primary molars: an in vitro study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Article
- Marginal and internal adaptation and absolute marginal discrepancy of 3D-printed, milled, and prefabricated crowns for primary molar teeth: an in vitro comparative study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe current trial aimed to compare lithium disilicate (LS2) endocrowns' clinical performance, gingival health, and parental satisfaction to those of prefabricated zirconia crowns (ZCs) over a 24-month of follow-up. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study designed as a spilt-mouth randomized controlled trial. A total of 88 pulpotomized mandibular second primary molars of 44 children were assigned into two equal groups. Forty-four molars were restored with prefabricated primary ZCs (control group) and the same number were restored with LS2 endocrown (intervention group). Clinical performance and gingival status were evaluated using a modified United States Public Health Service criterion, and plaque and gingival indices. Parental satisfaction was assessed using a 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Paired data were analyzed using McNemar's test, a statistical test used on paired nominal data, and paired
resultsBoth restorations showed comparable gingival health status over the follow-ups. Marginal adaptation of the endocrowns and ZCs at the end of follow-up was 95.5 and 90.9%, respectively (
conclusionEndocrowns' clinical performance and gingival health were comparable to those of ZCs. For both restorations, parental satisfaction was nearly similar except for the color that showed an advantage in favor of the endocrowns.
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.