ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2025. 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.
- BioFlx Pediatric Crowns: Current Evidence on Clinical Outcomes and Material Properties.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
Aim and background: The retention of the band and loop space maintainer over the stainless steel crowns (SSCs) dictates the success of the space maintainer. Using two widely used luting agents, this study assesses the binding strength between SS bands and the most popular SSCs as well as the recently released Bioflx crowns. Materials and methods: This Results: The shear bond strength between the SSC and RMGIC (0.908 ± 0.20 MPa) was statistically significant and higher than between the SSC and GIC (0.362 ± 0.21 MPa). Though not statistically significant, the binding strength between Bioflx crowns and GIC was stronger than between Bioflx crowns and RMGIC. Conclusion: The SS bands bonded well to the SSCs with RMGIC, and there was no significant difference between the SSCs and Bioflx crowns with GIC as the luting agent. Cohesive failures were common with GIC, and adhesive failures were common with RMGIC in both crowns. Clinical significance: The present study's findings can help clinicians make informed decisions when choosing crowns and luting agents for teeth with SSCs. How to cite this article: Singh D, Rao A, Shenoy R,
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.