Clinical oral investigations · 2026
Clinical and radiographic success of bioflex versus stainless steel crowns using the hall technique in primary molars: a 12-month randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Ramadan Yousra, Baraka Marwa, Dean Jeffrey A, Wahba Nadia A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The 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 METHODS: This 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.
RESULTS: At 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).
CONCLUSIONS: BFCs 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 REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in the clinicaltrials.gov registry (# NCT06847646).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 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.
RESULTS: At 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).
CONCLUSIONS: BFCs 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 REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in the clinicaltrials.gov registry (# NCT06847646).