Abstract
Data sourcesMedline, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Study selectionEnglish language randomised clinical trials comparing APCs with conventional restorative techniques for primary teeth.Data extraction and synthesisStudy selection and data abstraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Study characteristics and results were described qualitatively. Meta-analysis was not conducted.ResultsSeven studies were included, six reported on primary molars and one on primary incisors. There was great variety in the design of the RCTs, however, all compared pre-veneered stainless steel crowns (SSCs) with other crowns or two different pre-veneered SSCs. The risk of bias in all studies was high with significantly different outcome measures used.ConclusionsSSCs cannot be replaced by APCs for restoring decayed primary molar teeth due to the insufficient quality of evidence available. After a follow-up of only six months, zircon crowns gave significantly better results than the others regarding gingival health and crown fractures. Due to the small number of RCTs on this topic and their risk of bias, future RCTs should be carried out in primary teeth.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
