ArticleBMC oral health2025
Surface roughness and wear performance of Bioflx versus stainless-steel primary crowns (an in-vitro study).
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wear resistance and fracture strength of BioFlx, zirconia and stainless steel crowns for primary molars after thermomechanical aging: an in vitro comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Success with Preformed Stainless Steel Crowns and Bioflx Crowns: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- BioFlx Pediatric Crowns: Current Evidence on Clinical Outcomes and Material Properties.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferent kinds of crowns are used to restore primary teeth. Prefabricated crowns made of zirconia and stainless steel are frequently used. Bioflx crowns are a flexible and attractive substitute that combines the qualities of zirconia and stainless steel.
aimThis study aimed to compare BioFLX crowns to stainless-steel crowns regarding surface roughness and wear behavior.
methodsTwo experimental groups based on the crown material (N = 14/group); group (1): stainless-steel crowns (SSC) and group (2): BioFLX crowns (FLX-C) were compared for surface roughness and wear resistance. Surface roughness was measured using an optical profilometer (white light interferometry, 20X objective lens). For wear measurement, seven primary molars for each group were prepared to receive crowns. Specimens were dynamically loaded (vertical loading, 50 N, 1.2 Hz) up to 100,000 cycles in a chewing simulator, and then wear volume was measured digitally using color mapping method. Data was analyzed using an independent T-test at a significant level of P < 0.05.
resultsThe FLX-C group had lower mean surface roughness (Ra)than the SSC group, however, the difference was not statistically significant according to the independent T-test (T = 0.704, P = 0.495). The FLX-C group experienced decreased wear volumes compared to the SSC group, with a significant difference between the two groups (T = 4.524, P = 0.001).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that, in addition to their aesthetic superiority over SSC, BioFLX crowns have considerable wear resistance under several chewing cycles. Furthermore, their average surface roughness is comparable to that of SSC.
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.