Pediatric dentistry · 1999
Clinical performance of esthetic posterior crowns in primary molars: a pilot study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fuks A B, Ram D, Eidelman E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this pilot study was to assess the clinical performance of esthetic crowns and to compare these to conventional stainless steel crowns (SSC).
METHODS: Twenty two crowns (11 conventional and 11 esthetic) were placed in mandibular primary molars obeying the following criteria: the tooth was not mobile; no fistulae were present; the tooth had at least one caries free or properly restored antagonist and had to be in contact with one adjacent tooth mesially, in the case of the primary second molars or distally in the case of the primary first molars. Crown preparation was done in a conventional manner, but reduction was more extensive for the thicker esthetic crowns, to allow for proper occlusion. The crowns were evaluated clinically and radiographically after 6 months and the following parameters were assessed: gingival health, marginal extension, crown adequacy, proper position or occlusion, proximal contact, chipping of the facing (for esthetic crowns) and cement removal.
RESULTS: At the 6 month evaluation all esthetic crowns were intact, without chipping of the facing, and no excess of cement was observed in both groups. No difference was found for marginal extension, occlusion, proximal contact, crown adequacy, and bone resorption, but a significant difference was found for periodontal health between esthetic crowns and conventional SSC (P < 0.001 McNemar test).
CONCLUSIONS: The esthetic crowns assessed had several inconveniences, as they resulted in poor gingival health, are very expensive, and, although not measured, are bulky and without a natural appearance.
METHODS: Twenty two crowns (11 conventional and 11 esthetic) were placed in mandibular primary molars obeying the following criteria: the tooth was not mobile; no fistulae were present; the tooth had at least one caries free or properly restored antagonist and had to be in contact with one adjacent tooth mesially, in the case of the primary second molars or distally in the case of the primary first molars. Crown preparation was done in a conventional manner, but reduction was more extensive for the thicker esthetic crowns, to allow for proper occlusion. The crowns were evaluated clinically and radiographically after 6 months and the following parameters were assessed: gingival health, marginal extension, crown adequacy, proper position or occlusion, proximal contact, chipping of the facing (for esthetic crowns) and cement removal.
RESULTS: At the 6 month evaluation all esthetic crowns were intact, without chipping of the facing, and no excess of cement was observed in both groups. No difference was found for marginal extension, occlusion, proximal contact, crown adequacy, and bone resorption, but a significant difference was found for periodontal health between esthetic crowns and conventional SSC (P < 0.001 McNemar test).
CONCLUSIONS: The esthetic crowns assessed had several inconveniences, as they resulted in poor gingival health, are very expensive, and, although not measured, are bulky and without a natural appearance.