ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Retention of Pediatric BioFlx Crowns Versus Stainless Steel Crowns Using Different Types of Luting Cements: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of hybrid resin polymer crowns versus preformed metal crowns in primary molars of children aged 3-7 years: a prospective parallel-group clinical study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the retention of prefabricated polyether ether ketone crowns compared to stainless steel crowns (an in vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Marginal and internal adaptation of esthetic crowns for primary molars: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- BioFlx Pediatric Crowns: Current Evidence on Clinical Outcomes and Material Properties.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Retention of Bioflx, Zirconia, and Stainless Steel crowns using two different luting cements in primary molars: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
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
BioFlx crowns (BFCs) have been introduced in the dental market, combining the flexibility of stainless steel crowns (SSCs) with the esthetic appeal of preformed zirconia crowns. However, the existing literature does not provide adequate insights regarding the retentive strength of various types of luting cement with these newly developed BFCs. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the retentive strength of BFCs and SSCs with different types of luting cement (glass ionomer cement [GIC], resin-modified glass ionomer cement [RMGIC], self-adhesive resin cement [SARC], and polycarboxylate cement [PXC]). A total of 160 standardized resin dies were fabricated and divided into two groups based on the type of crown (BFCs or SSCs). Each group was further subdivided into four subgroups (20/group) based on the luting cement used for cementing the crown on the die. A pullout test was performed using a universal testing machine to measure the retentive strength required for crown dislodgement. The residual cement in the crown was scored to determine the cement failure pattern. Data were analyzed using two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) to evaluate the interaction between the cement and the type of crown on retentive strength, followed by an independent
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.