Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Clinical and radiographic success of bioflex versus stainless steel crowns using the hall technique in primary molars: a 12-month randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06847646 (Evaluation of Bioflex Crowns Using the Hall Technique in Primary Molars), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of Bioflex Crowns Using the Hall Technique in Primary Molars (a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)
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
backgroundThe present study evaluated and compared the clinical and radiographic success of BioFlex crowns (BFCs) versus stainless-steel crowns (SSCs) using Hall Technique (HT) in primary molars. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis two-arm randomized controlled trial included 74 healthy children aged 4-6 years with ICDAS 3-5 carious mandibular second primary molars. Each child contributed one tooth and was randomly assigned (1:1) to receive BFCs or SSCs using the HT. Baseline examination, radiographs, plaque, and gingival indices were recorded. Crowns were cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer. Primary outcomes were clinical and radiographic success; secondary outcomes included plaque and gingival indices, child and parental satisfaction. Evaluations were performed up to 12 months.
resultsAt 12 months, no statistically significant difference in success rates was detected between the groups (BFCs 91.9% vs. SSCs 94.6%; RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.86-1.10). SSCs had a higher gingival index at 1 week (MD = - 0.32, 95% CI: -0.56--0.08). BFCs showed higher plaque at 6 months (MD = 0.30) and 12 months (MD = 0.41). Child satisfaction favored BFCs (MD = - 0.67), with greater parental satisfaction for color (MD = 1.73) and overall satisfaction (MD = 0.41).
conclusionsBFCs are an esthetic alternative to SSCs when used with the HT. They showed no significant differences in short-term clinical success but higher child and parental satisfaction. However, perforation risk and greater plaque accumulation indicate the need for careful case selection and longer-term evaluation.
trial registrationThe trial was registered in the clinicaltrials.gov registry (# NCT06847646).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911278What 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.