Zirconia Preformed Paediatric Crown Versus Stainless Steel Crown in Primary Molars: A Randomized Controlled Split‐Mouth Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This split-mouth multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic success rates of zirconia crowns (ZCs) and stainless steel crowns (SSCs) on primary molars. Secondary objectives were to compare the study groups in terms of retention and preferences of both parents and children. METHODS: In 105 children, 210 teeth were randomized to receive either ZC or SSC. The primary outcome success rate was defined by the absence of major failure, such as signs of irreversible pulpitis or infectious complications, over a 2-year follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included retention rate and participant preference. Data were analyzed with Poisson regression, paired t-tests, and ANCOVA, with the significance level set at 5%. RESULTS: Success rates were comparable between the ZC and SSC groups (Rate Ratio [RR] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.96-1.01, p = 0.350). Retention rate was lower for ZCs compared to SSCs (RR = 0.95, 95% CI:0.92-0.98, p = 0.001). Approximately two-thirds of parents preferred ZCs, while children did not show a clear preference for either type of crown. CONCLUSIONS: The success rate between ZC and SSC was similar over 2 years, but ZC showed lower retention. Unlike children, parents tended to prefer ZC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".