ArticleBMC oral health2025
Digitally fabricated posterior ceramic crowns versus conventionally fabricated cast crowns: a split-mouth retrospective cohort 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. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of posterior ceramic crowns fabricated using digital technology compared to those fabricated via conventional elastomer impressions and casting methods at an academic institution.
methodsA split-mouth design was employed, wherein each participant received both a posterior ceramic crown (lithium disilicate or zirconia) fabricated using digital workflows and a cast crown fabricated conventionally. Of 45 potential participants treated between 2015 and 2023, 31 were included after excluding anteriors (7), < 1-year follow-ups (5), and bridge abutments (2). Patient- and tooth-related data were collected. Wilcoxon signed-rank and chi-square tests, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and the log-rank test were conducted to compare the ceramic and cast crown groups.
results62 teeth from 15 men and 16 women were observed for 1-8 years. The mean observation periods did not differ between the ceramic and cast groups (3.3 versus 4 years; p = 0.123). No significant differences were found in the distributions of root canal treatments, clinical crown lengthening procedures, and post-insertions (p > 0.05), nor in the probability of tooth survival (p = 0.14) between the two groups. The insertion of the ceramic crowns was significantly expedited from making the final impression compared to the cast crowns (21 versus 41 days; p = 0.0006). There were no significant differences in the complication rates and tooth loss between the two groups (p > 0.05), with most extractions due to endodontic reasons.
conclusionThe ceramic crowns demonstrated notable effectiveness over the cast crowns, completing the procedure in significantly fewer days, while resulting in a comparable prognosis with similar complication rates compared to the cast crowns.
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.