ArticleBMC oral health2025
Influence of luting cement on the biomechanical behavior of Bioflx crowns.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
backgroundThe objective of this study was to examine the impact of various types of cements on primary molar tooth restored with a Bioflx crown.
methodsThree distinct finite element models were developed to represent three different cements; (1) conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) (approximately 17 μm thick), (2) self-curing resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) (approximately 10 μm thick), and (3) self-cure resin cement (RC) (approximately 30 μm thick), all supporting/securing the Bioflx crown (approximately 330 microns thick). The geometry of the lower second primary molar was captured by laser scanning and then processed to create a solid model. This model was then imported into finite element software to assign materials, create a mesh, and evaluate stress and deformation under average normal occlusal loads. An applied load of 330 N was evaluated at three angles: vertical, oblique at 45°, and lateral.
resultsThe results indicated that model #2 (self-curing resin-modified GIC) exhibited the greatest deformation across all model components under the three loading conditions. The results for conventional GIC cement were comparable to those of self-cure resin cement. The resin-modified self-curing GIC (model #2) demonstrated high stress levels under lateral and oblique loads. Additionally, elevated stress concentrations were observed in the cortical bone region.
conclusionsA cement type with a higher modulus of elasticity may be preferred over other types, in addition to the potential for use with a thinner thickness. Therefore, conventional GIC demonstrated the best performance among the cements evaluated in this study. This was followed by self-cure resin cement, while self-curing resin-modified GIC might be excluded due to expectation of failure.
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.