ArticleBMC oral health2025
Retention of Bioflx, Zirconia, and Stainless Steel crowns using two different luting cements in primary molars: an in vitro study.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the retention of prefabricated polyether ether ketone crowns compared to stainless steel crowns (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
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
backgroundDifferent crown types are used for the full-coverage restoration of primary teeth with extensive caries. Bioflx crowns are hybrid polymer-resin crowns designed to combine the benefits of Stainless Steel and Zirconia. The longevity and clinical efficacy of dental restorations are significantly affected by crown retention. We aim to assess the retention of Bioflx, Zirconia, and Stainless Steel crowns using two different luting materials.
methodsFifty-four (n = 54) freshly extracted mandibular second primary molars were divided into three main groups (n = 18): Bioflx crowns, Zirconia crowns, and Stainless Steel crowns (SSCs). Each group was further subdivided into two subgroups (n = 9), using either Conventional Glass Ionomer luting cement (GIC) or Resin Modified Glass Ionomer luting cement (RMGIC). A retention test was performed to determine the retentive force required for crown removal after the samples underwent 2,000 cycles of thermocycling. A stereo light microscope was used to examine the debonding failure. Data were analysed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Pearson's chi-square test.
resultsStainless Steel crowns exhibited the highest retention in both subgroups (GIC = 307.44 ± 53.58 N, RMGIC = 324.11 ± 52.04 N). Bioflx crowns outperformed Zirconia crowns (Bioflx: GIC = 138.11 ± 30.87 N, RMGIC = 218.11 ± 34.61 N; Zirconia: GIC = 35.50 ± 5.14 N, RMGIC = 131.78 ± 11.91 N). All differences between the GIC and RMGIC subgroups were significant (p < 0.001), except for Stainless Steel crowns (p = 0.5). RMGIC had greater retention values than GIC in all groups, and the difference was significant (p < 0.001), except for the SCCs group (p = 0.5).
conclusionsStainless Steel crowns showed the highest retention across all tested luting cements, followed by Bioflx crowns, which exhibited superior retention compared with Zirconia crowns. RMGIC showed superior retention compared with GIC.
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.