ReviewCureus2024
Bacterial Adhesion in Pediatric Crowns: A Systematic and Meta-Analytical Review.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stainless steel crowns (SSC) have long been the standard choice due to their durability, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness. Other esthetic crowns, known for their superior esthetic properties and biocompatibility, have emerged as a popular option in recent years. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, up to June 2024. The population under study was primary teeth, with the intervention being the application of aesthetic crowns. These were compared against SSC, with the primary outcome being the level of microbial adhesion on the crowns in primary teeth. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models to estimate pooled differences in microbial adhesion levels. A total of five studies were included in the review. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in microbial adhesion between esthetic and SSC, with esthetic crowns showing lower levels of bacterial colonization. Specifically, the mean difference in colony-forming units (CFU). Esthetic crowns exhibit significantly lower microbial adhesion compared to SSC in pediatric patients, suggesting a potential advantage in reducing the risk of secondary caries and other microbial-related complications. However, further long-term clinical studies are warranted to confirm these results and assess their clinical implications.
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.