ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Digitally fabricated custom esthetic crowns for primary molars: A systematic review of in vitro and clinical evidence.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of digitally fabricated esthetic crowns for restoring primary molars has increased with the development of CAD/CAM systems, three-dimensional (3D) printing, and tooth-colored biomaterials. However, the available evidence remains heterogeneous, and the clinical role of customized digital crowns in comparison with conventional pediatric crowns is still unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the available in vitro and clinical evidence on esthetic customized crowns fabricated using digital workflows for primary molars. Material and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies evaluating digitally fabricated esthetic crowns for primary molars. Eligible studies included in vitro investigations, clinical studies, randomized clinical trials, and finite element analyses assessing marginal or internal adaptation, fracture resistance, wear behavior, clinical performance, gingival health, or patient and parent satisfaction. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 for clinical trials and the QUIN tool for in vitro studies. Due to heterogeneity in study designs, materials, comparators, and outcomes, a qualitative synthesis was performed. Results: Twenty-four studies were included, 17 in vitro studies, six clinical studies, and one finite element analysis. Most studies evaluated zirconia, 3D-printed resins, PMMA, CAD/CAM composites, or hybrid ceramics. In vitro findings suggested favorable marginal and internal adaptation for several customized digital crowns and material-dependent fracture resistance. Clinical studies reported acceptable short-term performance, although follow-up was generally limited and outcomes varied across materials. Stainless steel crowns remained a highly predictable comparator, while esthetic digital crowns showed potential advantages in esthetics and customization. Conclusions: Digitally fabricated esthetic crowns for primary molars represent a promising restorative alternative, but current evidence does not demonstrate consistent superiority over stainless steel crowns. Further well-designed clinical trials with longer follow-up and standardized outcomes are needed.
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.