ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Effects of different restorative materials on incisor root canal and crown restoration outcomes along with patient functional recovery.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo compare the clinical outcomes of incisor residual root and crown restorations using precious metal porcelain crowns (PMPC) versus zirconia all-ceramic crowns (ZACC), with a focus on gingival health, dental aesthetics, functional recovery, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 218 adult patients who underwent incisor restoration with at least 1 year of follow-up (91 PMPC, 127 ZACC). Gingival health was evaluated by plaque, gingival, and bleeding indices, as well as probing depth, and gingival fluid volume. Dental aesthetics were assessed by color matching, gloss, and patient satisfaction. Functional recovery was examined by bite force, and OHRQoL was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14. Restoration quality and integrity were evaluated during follow-up.
resultsBoth groups showed significant improvement in gingival health, with ZACC demonstrating superior reductions in plaque, gingival, and bleeding indices, and gingival fluid volume. ZACC also achieved better color matching, gloss consistency, and higher patient satisfaction with aesthetics. Bite force recovery was consistently greater in the ZACC group. OHRQoL improved in both groups, but gains were more pronounced with ZACC. At six months, ZACC showed a higher rate of excellent restorations and fewer poor outcomes. At one year, no significant differences were observed between groups in crown durability, loss, or secondary caries.
conclusionCompared with PMPC, ZACC offer provides greater benefits in gingival health, aesthetics, functional recovery, and OHRQoL compared, while both materials show comparable long-term durability and complication rates.
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.