Clinical Evaluation of Zirconia and Stainless-Steel crowns in Primary Molars - A Randomized Control Trial

Abstract

Background and Aim: Aesthetic alternatives to stainless steel crown for restoring primary molars attain a growing interest. The aim of the study was clinical evaluation and comparison of zirconia and stainless steel crown in primary molars (clinical and radiograph) Methods: A randomized controlled study was conducted on children of age group of 5 to 8 years of age visiting, KVG Dental College and Hospital, Sullia and who were meet the inclusion criteria of the study. The study population was randomly divided into two groups of 24 each. Group I: stainless steel crown, Group II: zirconia crown. Post endodontic tooth preparation was done and selected stainless steel and zirconia crowns followed by cemented using type 1 glass ionomer cement. The subjects was be recalled after 3, 6 and 9 months to check gingival index, oral hygiene index and bone health of the tooth using intraoral periapical radiograph. Results: There was significant increase in score of gingival index and OHI score for both SSC and zirconia crowns after 3 month followed by reduction in score at 6 and 9 months. There was no statistically significant difference in alveolar bone height in both groups (zirconia and SSCs) for 6 months. Conclusion: Zirconia crowns presented to be an excellent choice for primary posterior teeth full coverage restorations. Zirconia crowns performed better than SSCs in the aspect of gingival response and prevention of plaque adhesion. Keywords: zirconia crowns, stainless steel crown, primary molars, esthetics, dental caries.

Comparative Evaluation of Gingival Health Among Children With Stainless Steel Crowns and Stainless Steel Bands: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Trial

“…It was determined that, for both SSCs and zirconia crowns, there was a statistically significant increase in the GI and Oral Hygiene Index (OHI) scores after three months, followed by a decline in scores at six and nine months. After six months, there was no significant difference in gingival health between the two groups [ 30 ]. Hence, it can be inferred that any form of prosthesis altering the normal oral environment is not absolutely gingival-friendly.…”