Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Comparative clinical performance of stainless steel, zirconia, and Bioflx crowns in primary molars: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06706167 (Clinical Comparison Between Stainless-steel Crown, Zirconia Crown and Bioflx Crown in Primary Molars), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Clinical Comparison Between Stainless-steel Crown, Zirconia Crown and Bioflx Crown in Primary Molars: Randomized Control Trial
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prefabricated zirconia crowns versus alternative full-coverage restorations for primary anterior teeth: a systematic review of clinical outcomes.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical and radiographic success of bioflex versus stainless steel crowns using the hall technique in primary molars: a 12-month randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Clinical Performance and Immediate Child and Parental Satisfaction with BioFlx Crowns in Primary Molars: A Prospective, Single-Arm, Non-Randomized Interventional Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 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
- Influence of Restorative Material Properties on Dentin Stress Distribution: A 3D Finite Element Analysis of Bioflx and Zirconia Crowns.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Bioflex crowns in pediatric dentistry: a scoping review of current evidence and clinical applications.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- To Evaluate Clinical Performance of Preformed Zirconia Crowns, Computer-aided Design and Computer-aided Manufacturing Zirconia Crowns, and Bioflx Crowns in Primary Molars Postendodontic Therapy.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Marginal and internal adaptation of esthetic crowns for primary molars: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Esthetic Zirconia Crowns in Children: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- BioFlx Pediatric Crowns: Current Evidence on Clinical Outcomes and Material Properties.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Sintering Distortion in Multi-Composition-Layered Zirconia Disks for Dental Prostheses: An Experimental Analysis.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChoosing the appropriate crown type for primary molars is essential for effective restoration and oral health. Stainless steel crowns are durable and cost-effective, making them suitable for extensive decay. Zirconia crowns offer esthetic advantages, while Bioflx crowns require less preparation and provide optimal appearance. Understanding the benefits and limitations of each type ensures optimal outcomes for young patients. The purpose of the study was to clinically compare these three types of crowns for primary molars regarding plaque accumulation, debonding rate, crown substance loss and gingival health. MATERIALS AND
methodsRegistered with clinicalTrials.gov (NCT06706167), this study included 75 children (43 males, 32 females; mean age: 6.3 years) divided into 3 groups: Group A (stainless steel crowns), Group B (zirconia crowns), and Group C (Bioflx crowns), with 25 patients each. Plaque index, crown survival regarding debonding rate and substance loss, and gingival index were evaluated at baseline, 6, and 12 months.
resultsAt 6- and 12-month follow-ups, no significant differences were observed among groups. However, zirconia crown demonstrated better results in terms of plaque accumulation and gingival health. Conversely, stainless steel crown showed marginally better performance in crown retention.
conclusionAll crowns showed acceptable clinical performance. Factors such as crown retention, esthetics and biocompatibility should be considered when selecting the most appropriate crown for each molar.
trial registrationThe study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, with the registration number NCT06706167 with registration date 26,112,024.
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.