ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Three-dimensional-printed Photopolymer Resin Crowns vs Computer-aided Milled Polymethyl Methacrylate Crowns with Prefabricated Zirconia Crowns for Primary Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 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.
- Digitally fabricated custom esthetic crowns for primary molars: A systematic review of in vitro and clinical evidence.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
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
Aim: To compare and evaluate the clinical success rate of computer-aided designed and milled polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) crowns, three-dimensional (3D)-printed photopolymer resin crowns with prefabricated zirconia crowns in primary molars. Materials and methods: This study was carried out in children requiring crowns in the age-group of 4-8 years. Initial clinical and radiographic analyses for all the children were carried out, and 45 children were included in the study. Impression-making techniques were evaluated for their preference, comfort, pain, gag reflex, and breathing difficulty using a visual analog scale (VAS). Clinical evaluation was done using the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 3, 6, and 9 months. Friedman test was used for statistical analysis. Results: For the evaluation of impression technique for patient's preference, comfort, pain, and gag reflex, there was a statistically significant difference for all the parameters with a Conclusion: Polymethyl methacrylate crowns and photopolymer resin crowns showed good marginal adaptation and biocompatibility as compared to prefabricated zirconia crowns. How to cite this article: Naik SV, Thakkar SV, Naik D,
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.