Comparison of Survival Rates of Stainless-Steel Crowns Placed with and without Pulpotomy: A Two-Year Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. This study aimed to retrospectively compare the survival outcomes over two years between teeth with proximal dental caries that were restored with stainless-steel crowns to those that were pulpotomized and then restored with a stainless-steel crown in patients who were rehabilitated under general anesthesia. Participants and Methods. The records of 131 patients aged between two to six years who had stainless-steel crowns placed under general anesthesia and had two-year follow-up were screened. 340 teeth with moderate proximal caries on the radiograph (D2) were included in the study. Of these, 164 teeth were treated with a pulpotomy and stainless-steel crown, while 176 teeth were crowned without a pulpotomy. The type of each tooth was compared using the Chi-squared test and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, and curves were plotted based on the two-year outcomes. Results. Treatment: the sample comprised 59 males (mean age 4.73 years, SD ± 1.4 years) and 72 females (mean age 5.2 years, SD ± 2.0 years). The Kaplan–Meier regression model showed no significant difference in survival outcomes between teeth that had been pulpotomized and those that had not ( <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <mi>p</mi> </math> = 0.283). Conclusion. Within the limitations of the current study, we can conclude that performing a pulpotomy does not influence the survival outcome of mild/moderate proximal caries restored with stainless-steel crowns under general anesthesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".