ArticleBMC oral health2026
Marginal and internal adaptation of esthetic crowns for primary molars: an in-vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the marginal and internal adaptation of the prefabricated esthetic crowns for primary molars.
methodsEighty human primary mandibular second molars were distributed into four groups: stainless steel crowns (SS), preveneered stainless steel crowns (VSS), prefabricated zirconia crowns (PZ), and BioFlx crowns (BF). After cementation, ten samples per group were subjected to 5000 thermal cycles of 5 ± 0.5 °C to 55 ± 0.5 °C to simulate six months of clinical service, followed by marginal- and internal adaptation assessment (µm) using the cross-sectioning method of all samples. Differences between the groups’ internal and marginal adaptation were tested using analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey’s post hoc test, while differences within each group before and after thermocycling were tested using Student’s t-test at P = 0.05 using SPSS version 25 software.
resultsANOVA tests revealed a significant difference in marginal and internal adaptation among the test groups. Before thermocycling, SS crowns demonstrated the highest marginal (33.5 ± 3.87 μm) and internal (37.12 ± 3.11 μm) adaptation values, whereas PZ showed the lesser values (37.63 ± 2.56 μm and 42.31 ± 1.45 μm respectively). Both BF and VSS presented intermediate performance. Following thermocycling, all crowns exhibited increased gap values, with SS maintaining the most favorable marginal (36.07 ± 1.79 μm) and internal (38.75 ± 1.93 μm) adaptation, while PZ and BF showed the greater deterioration of marginal (44.79 ± 1.75 μm and 45.78 ± 1.99 μm) and internal adaptation (45.37 ± 1.75 μm and 46.22 ± 1.69 μm) respectively. VSS remained comparable to SS in both marginal and internal adaptation.
conclusionsStainless steel crowns demonstrated the most favorable and stable marginal and internal adaptation, while the greatest discrepancies after aging were detected in prefabricated zirconia and BioFlx 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.