Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39184652›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Bacterial Adhesion in Pediatric Crowns: A Systematic and Meta-Analytical Review.

Neshkumar K L S, Kavitha Ramar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Neshkumar K L SPediatric and Preventive Dentistry, SRM (Sri Ramaswamy Memorial) Kattankulathur Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, IND.
Kavitha RamarPedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, SRM (Sri Ramaswamy Memorial) Kattankulathur Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

microbial adhesionoral microbiologypediatric preventive dentistrystainless steel crownssystematic review and meta analysis

Identifiers

PMID39184652
PMCPMC11343068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.