ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of the retention of prefabricated polyether ether ketone crowns compared to stainless steel crowns (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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStainless steel crowns (SSCs) are widely recommended for primary molar restorations due to their long-term durability, low cost, and ease of preparation and application. While polyether ether ketone (PEEK) offers a potential aesthetic alternative, data on its performance in primary teeth is limited. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate several physical properties PEEK crowns in comparison to SSC on primary molars. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vitro study evaluated 40 crowns divided equally into four groups: Prefabricated PEEK 0.2 mm (minimal prep), Prefabricated PEEK 0.4 mm (minimal prep), CAD/CAM PEEK (comprehensive prep), and SSCs (minimal prep). All crowns were cemented with glass ionomer cement. Retention strength, failure mode assessment, and surface roughness were tested. Data were analyzed using SPSS 21 with one-way ANOVA, Pearson’s chi-square, and independent samples t-tests at a significance level of p < 0.05.
resultsSSCs demonstrated significantly higher mean retention values than all PEEK groups (p < 0.05). Among the PEEK crowns, the prefabricated 0.2 mm variant showed the highest retention, followed by the prefabricated 0.4 mm and CAD/CAM designs. Failure mode distribution was significantly associated with crown material (p < 0.05). Furthermore, PEEK crowns exhibited a mean surface roughness approximately 3.7 times greater than that of SSCs (p < 0.05).
conclusionWhile stainless steel crowns provided superior performance, prefabricated 0.2 mm PEEK crowns are a potential aesthetic alternative for low-stress situations, despite concerns regarding their higher surface roughness and plaque accumulation potential, necessitating further clinical study.
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.