SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2025
Restorative strategies for deciduous anterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
aimCommon causes of destruction in primary anterior teeth include dental caries and trauma. This systematic review evaluated the success rate of restorative techniques for these cases.
methodsSystematic searches were conducted in Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and ProQuest until February 2024. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions with ≥12 months of follow-up were included. Exclusion criteria were: studies with >30% loss to follow-up, unclear evaluation criteria, management under general anesthesia, unhealthy patients, or lacking individual success data. A meta-analysis assessed success rates, with subgroup analyses. Risk of bias was evaluated using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, and evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE system.
resultsEight studies involving 852 teeth from 271 children aged 2-9 years, with follow-ups of 3-36 months, were included. The meta-analysis revealed a 71% success rate at 12 months for all techniques. Strip crowns (79%) and zirconia crowns (70%) had the highest success rates for teeth without endodontic treatment. Intracanal posts (resin or glass fiber) achieved an 83% success rate for teeth requiring endodontic treatment. Evidence certainty was low. DISCUSSION: Strip crowns and zirconia crowns performed well for teeth without endodontic treatment, with strip crowns offering a simpler and less technique-sensitive option. Biological restorations had poorer outcomes due to their complexity, sensitivity, and the need for a tooth biobank, raising legal and logistical challenges. Although zirconia crowns require extensive subgingival preparation, they align less with minimally invasive principles compared to strip crowns. Intracanal posts showed high success rates for teeth needing endodontic treatment, regardless of the material used.
conclusionsStrip crowns appear to be a suitable option for restoring primary anterior teeth that do not require endodontic treatment. For teeth requiring endodontic treatment, the use of intracanal posts combined with strip crowns seems to yield satisfactory results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40348821What 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.