Reasons for Crown Failures in Primary Teeth: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a tendency nowadays to restore large defects in primary dentition with pediatric crowns instead of conventional restorations. Thus, understanding the factors contributing to the survival or failure of dental crowns in pediatric dentistry is essential for optimizing treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this protocol is to outline the methodological approach for analyzing data from observational studies and randomized controlled trials to investigate reasons for the failure of dental crowns in primary teeth and to compute their survival and failure rates. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review will be performed in electronic databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science. As per predefined inclusion criteria, we will include observational studies (prospective clinical studies) and randomized clinical trials that have an English abstract and involve children aged 1-10 years undergoing crown restorations. Two independent reviewers will independently screen all retrieved records and full-text articles and extract data. The study's methodological quality will be appraised using suitable tools. Assessments of publication bias will be performed using funnel plots. The findings will be described qualitatively for the systematic review. If possible, a meta-analysis will be performed to estimate failure rates by dividing the number of failures by the total exposure time. A Poisson regression model, assuming constant event rates, will be used to compute 3-year and 5-year survival proportions. The Pearson goodness-of-fit statistics will be used to assess the heterogeneity of the model. A P value <.05 will be considered significant. All analyses will be performed using R Statistical software (version 4.1.2; R Core Team). RESULTS: This systematic review and synthesis aim to assess the survival and failure rates of dental crowns in pediatric dentistry. By following this rigorous methodology, we seek to provide valuable insights into the factors contributing to the success or failure of these restorations. The results of our full review will have implications for pediatric dentists, researchers, and policy makers, helping to improve dental care for children. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review protocol helps in establishing a thorough approach for reviewing failures in pediatric crowns. By following this methodology, standardization and transparency of the process as well as accountability for the stated methods and outcomes will be ensured. The findings of this review and analysis will provide useful data on the survival of crowns to pediatric dentists and researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023442266; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=442266. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/51505.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.077 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".