Reasons for Crown Failures in Primary Teeth: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Understanding long-term retention rates and complications associated with different materials for fabricating pediatric crowns for primary teeth is crucial for material selection and optimizing clinical outcomes. objectives: This systematic review aimed to descriptively analyze the crown-retention rates and complications associated with crown retention, as well as the biological and technical complications of pediatric crowns, for primary teeth. The meta-analysis reported herein was performed to estimate long-term (3-year and 5-year) retention rates of these pediatric crowns fabricated using various materials. Methods: Using the PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design) paradigm, a systematic search was conducted between July and August 2023 in the Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical (prospective and retrospective) studies reporting retention rates, complications of crown retention, and biological and technical complications. After selecting studies with a predefined set of selection criteria, data from included studies were used for a systematic review aimed at a descriptive analysis of factors associated with the failure of crowns for primary teeth. Data from the included RCTs were used for meta-analysis, wherein 3-year and 5-year crown-retention rates were estimated using Poisson regression models. Results: This systematic review included 13 RCTs and 5 clinical studies on dental crowns for primary teeth, involving 454 children (1172 crowns) in RCTs and 810 children (2667 crowns) in clinical studies. The median follow-up durations were 12 months for RCTs and 20.8 months for clinical studies, with a 10.6% (124/1172) dropout rate in RCTs. Meta-analysis of pooled 5-year retention rates for different crown materials revealed the following retention rates: 88.90% for compomer crowns, 92.18% for composite resin crowns, 90.30% for resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) crowns, and 97.88% for stainless steel crowns. Additionally, strip crowns exhibited a retention rate of 83.48%, while zirconia crowns had a retention rate of 97.09%. Poisson regression estimated 3-year and 5-year crown-retention rates, indicating good outcomes across materials. Complications included secondary caries (up to 21.8% in zirconia crowns) and marginal adaptation issues (up to 22.2% in compomer crowns). These findings highlight material-specific considerations necessary for optimizing outcomes in pediatric dental crown treatments. Conclusions: While retentive complications such as chipping, material loss, and fractures do occur across materials, compomer, composite resin, stainless steel, strip, and zirconia crowns all have clinically acceptable retention rates. However, the differences in biological and technical complications between materials may provide insights for selecting appropriate materials for pediatric crowns based on clinical considerations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».