Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40311116›Full record

ReviewInteractive journal of medical research2025

Reasons for Crown Failures in Primary Teeth: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Stephan Lampl, Deepa Gurunathan, Deepak Mehta, Krithikadatta Jogikalmat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interactive journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Stephan LamplDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, 162, Poonamallee High Rd, Velappanchavadi, Chennai, 600077, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9865-346X
Deepa GurunathanDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, 162, Poonamallee High Rd, Velappanchavadi, Chennai, 600077, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6014-946X
Deepak MehtaDepartment of Cariology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1272-1193
Krithikadatta JogikalmatDepartment of Cariology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7122-025X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Understanding long-term retention rates and complications associated with different materials for fabricating pediatric crowns for primary teeth is crucial for material selection and optimizing clinical outcomes. objectives: This systematic review aimed to descriptively analyze the crown-retention rates and complications associated with crown retention, as well as the biological and technical complications of pediatric crowns, for primary teeth. The meta-analysis reported herein was performed to estimate long-term (3-year and 5-year) retention rates of these pediatric crowns fabricated using various materials. Methods: Using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design) paradigm, a systematic search was conducted between July and August 2023 in the Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical (prospective and retrospective) studies reporting retention rates, complications of crown retention, and biological and technical complications. After selecting studies with a predefined set of selection criteria, data from included studies were used for a systematic review aimed at a descriptive analysis of factors associated with the failure of crowns for primary teeth. Data from the included RCTs were used for meta-analysis, wherein 3-year and 5-year crown-retention rates were estimated using Poisson regression models. Results: This systematic review included 13 RCTs and 5 clinical studies on dental crowns for primary teeth, involving 454 children (1172 crowns) in RCTs and 810 children (2667 crowns) in clinical studies. The median follow-up durations were 12 months for RCTs and 20.8 months for clinical studies, with a 10.6% (124/1172) dropout rate in RCTs. Meta-analysis of pooled 5-year retention rates for different crown materials revealed the following retention rates: 88.90% for compomer crowns, 92.18% for composite resin crowns, 90.30% for resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) crowns, and 97.88% for stainless steel crowns. Additionally, strip crowns exhibited a retention rate of 83.48%, while zirconia crowns had a retention rate of 97.09%. Poisson regression estimated 3-year and 5-year crown-retention rates, indicating good outcomes across materials. Complications included secondary caries (up to 21.8% in zirconia crowns) and marginal adaptation issues (up to 22.2% in compomer crowns). These findings highlight material-specific considerations necessary for optimizing outcomes in pediatric dental crown treatments. Conclusions: While retentive complications such as chipping, material loss, and fractures do occur across materials, compomer, composite resin, stainless steel, strip, and zirconia crowns all have clinically acceptable retention rates. However, the differences in biological and technical complications between materials may provide insights for selecting appropriate materials for pediatric crowns based on clinical considerations.

Indexed as

biological complicationschildrencomplicationcrowndentaldentistmeta-analysisoralpediatricsprimary teethreview methodssearchsurvival ratessynthesissystematictechnical complications

Identifiers

PMID40311116
PMCPMC12061352

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.