ArticleScientific reports2024
Qualitative surface roughness of lithium disilicate endo-crown for pulpotomized primary molars.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of Dental CAD-CAM Resin Composite Thickness on the Polymerization Behavior of Dual-Cure Resin Cements for Endocrown Restoration.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rehabilitation of pulpotomized primary molars with an appropriate restoration is essential for recovering function and safeguarding the durability of the treatment. This study aimed to assess and compare the surface roughness of stainless steel (ST) crowns, zirconia (ZR) crowns, fiberglass (FG) crowns, and lithium disilicate (LD) endo-crowns as a restoration for pulpotomized primary molars also, evaluating the surface roughness of their antagonists. Sixty pulpotomized primary mandibular first molars were used for qualitative surface roughness evaluation and divided into four groups (n = 15/group) according to the crown type (group-ST, group-ZR, group-FG, group-LD). While the other sixty sound, unprepared primary maxillary first molars were used for evaluation of their surface roughness against the tested crowns. Specimens' preparation and cementation were carried out according to each crown type and manufacturer's instructions. The surface roughness was done using a two-body wear test. The data were statistically analyzed. All tested crowns showed an increased change in surface roughness, except group-ZR, which had the least change in surface roughness after mechanical wear with no statistically significant difference(P = 0.681). All crown types significantly increased the surface roughness of their antagonists after mechanical wear, except group-ST which showed insignificant affection (p ≥ 0.05). Zirconia crowns and lithium disilicate endo-crowns had the least change in surface roughness compared to other groups while SSCs showed the least tooth loss in the antagonist enamel.
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.