Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite crowns in pulp-treated primary molars: 12-month results

Abstract

Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-colored fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) crowns in pulp-treated second primary mandibular teeth.Materials and Methods:This split-mouth randomized, clinical trial performed on 67 children between 3 and 6 years with two primary mandibular second molars requiring pulp treatment. After pulp therapy, the teeth were randomly assigned to stainless steel crown (SSC) or FRC crown groups. Modified United States Public Health Service criteria were used to evaluate marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and secondary caries in FRC crowns at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months. Retention rate and gingival health were also compared between the two groups. The data were analyzed using Friedman, Cochran, and McNemar's tests at a significance level of 0.05.Results:Intact marginal integrity in FRC crowns at 3, 6, and 12 months were 93.2%, 94.8%, and 94.2%, respectively. Marginal discoloration and secondary caries were not found at any of the FRC crowns. The retention rates of the FRC crowns were 100%, 98.3%, and 89.7% at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, whereas all the SSCs were found to be present and intact after 12 months (P = 0.016). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in gingival health.Conclusion:According to the results of this study, it seems that when esthetics is a concern, in cooperative patients with good oral hygiene, FRC crowns can be considered as a valuable procedure.

Clinical and Radiographical evaluation of fiberglass crown and stainless steel crown in primary molars.

“…This finding was not following the manufacturer's claims that Fiberglass crown showed higher fracture resistance scores than SSCs. 15 The present results were also inconsistent with Mohammad et al, (16) who compared Fiberglass crown and stainless-steel crowns on primary molars; only one Fiberglass crown out of 67 showed fracture compared to none in the stainless-steel crowns after a follow-up period of 12 months. On the other hand, Mohammad et al .…”

“…On the other hand, Mohammad et al . (16) used a custom-made Fiberglass crown, and tooth preparation demanded removing all undercuts from all surfaces, which allowed for more bulk of the material. Thus, it can be assumed that Fiberglass crown thickness may not be enough to provide a strong material that withstands the forces of mastication.…”

Fatigue and 3-D wear resistance of Fiberglass versus Stainless steel crowns for restoration of primary teeth.

“…Our findings were in accordance with other studies that showed high wear behaviour of fiberglass crowns compared to other crown types: Ohlmann B, et al [15] evaluated the clinical wear behaviour of posterior, metal-free polymer crowns, with and without a glass-fiber framework, and compared it with that of metal-ceramic crowns, within a 12-month observation period they found that the mean total wear of posterior polymer crowns with and without a glass-fiber framework was significantly greater than metal-ceramic crowns. Moreover, Mohammadzadeh et al [16] compared the clinical performance of costumed made fiberglass crowns and SSCs in primary molars, they concluded that the SSCs showed significantly higher durability 100%, compared to only 89.7% FRCs at the end of the 1-year assessment. In another clinical study done by Behr.…”

Stress Distribution in Restored Primary Molar Using Finite Element Analysis

“…In 2007, Bernardo et al (Bernardo et al 2007) reported that 94.4% of all amalgam restorations survived for seven years when placed in permanent posterior molars of children aged 8-12. However, amalgam is still the most durable and cost-effective restorative material, but in preschool children with large proximal carious lesions, preformed metal crowns are preferred to amalgam because of their durability (Mohammadzadeh et al 2016).…”