ArticleBMC oral health2022
New approach to expedite the delivery of the final crowns for teeth requiring crown lengthening surgery: a pilot study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe healing period from crown lengthening procedures (CLPs) often delays the final crown delivery. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of a new approach expediting the delivery of the final crowns for teeth requiring CLPs.
methodsTeeth requiring CLPs and single-crown restorations between the canine and the second molar were included. After the initial tooth preparation, a CLP was performed. In the experimental group, the final tooth preparation and final impression were made during the CLP; the final crown was then delivered at the suture-removal appointment. In the control group, the final impression was made 8 weeks after the CLP. The level of gingival margin (GM), pocket depth (PD), and crestal bone levels (CBLs) were compared between the two groups before CLPs (T0), at delivery of the crowns (T1), and at 12 months in function (T2).
resultsTwenty-one lithium-disilicate crowns were delivered to 20 subjects and followed up. The mean interval between the CLPs and the delivery of crowns was 2.5 weeks for the experimental group and 12 weeks for the control group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the level of GM, PD, and CBLs at each time point. No significant treatment difference in crestal bone loss was observed between the two groups at T2 (Experimental = -0.11 mm, Control = -0.03 mm; p = 0.67).
conclusionMaking the final tooth preparation and the final impression at the CLP significantly reduced the time between the CLP and the delivery of the final crown and showed comparable clinical outcomes.
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.