Comparison between the average dimensions of some kinds of stainless steel crowns (SSCs) and the average dimensions of primary molar teeth.

Document Type : Short Communication(s)

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Faculty, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.

2 Dentist, Kerman Health Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Kerman Oral and Dental Diseases Research Center, Department of Pedodontics, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Endodontics, Dental Faculty, Kerman University of Medical Sciences. Kerman, Iran

Abstract

Abstract
Background: stainless-steel crowns (SSCs) are usually used for deciduous teeth with more than two destroyed surfaces. Selecting the suitable SSC, in terms of proximal fit and marginal fit, has usually been challenging for practitioners. The current study compares the deciduous molar dimensions in the SCCs with the dimensions of these teeth given in the textbook.
Methods: The dimensions of 3M, Kids Crowns, and KTR SCCs were measured using a digital caliper. Utilizing SPSS 26 software, the data was examined and compared to the table of standard sizes of primary teeth using one-sample t-test, ANOVA, and Tukey's test. P-values less than 0.05 were considered significant.
Results: The study showed no significant difference in upper first molar SSCs in the occlusal-cervical dimension in Kids Crowns (P = 0.14) and 3M (P = 0.078) and in the mesiodistal dimension in Kids KTR (P = 0.083) and Crowns (P = 0.22). There was no significant difference in lower first molar SSCs in the occlusal-cervical dimension in Kids Crowns (P = 0.14) and in the bucco-lingual dimension in 3M (P = 0.91) and KTR SSCs (P = 0.09). There was no significant difference in the upper second molar SSCs in the occlusal-cervical dimension of Kids Crowns (P = 0.28) and 3M (P = 0.32). There was no significant difference in lower second molar SSCs in the occlusal-cervical dimension in Kids Crowns (P = 0.27) and KTR (P = 0.07), in the mesiodistal dimension in Kids Crowns (P = 0.22), KTR (P = 0.22), 3M (P = 0.59) and in the bucco-lingual dimension of KTR (P = 0.26) and 3M (P = 0.78).
Conclusion: SSCs and teeth had the highest conformity in the occlusal-cervical dimension and the lowest conformity in the mesiodistal and bucco-lingual dimensions. SSCs had the highest conformity with the lower molars.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Innes NP, Ricketts DN, Evans DJ. Preformed metal crowns for
decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2007(1):CD005512. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005512.pub2.
2. McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Textbook of Dentistry for
the Child and Adolescent. 10th ed. Mosby; 2016. p. 418-23.
3. Hickel R, Krämer N. [Possibilities of crowning damaged
primary teeth]. Zwr. 1990;99(5):367-71. [German].
4. Roberts JF. The open-face stainless steel crown for primary
molars. ASDC J Dent Child. 1983;50(4):262-3.
5. Fleming P, Lout RK, Feigal RJ, Walker PO. The stainless steel
crown with a composite facing--a restoration for primary
anterior teeth. J Ir Dent Assoc. 1987;33(2-4):19-21.
6. King NM, Anthonappa RP, Itthagarun A. The importance
of the primary dentition to children-part 1: consequences
of not treating carious teeth. Hong Kong Practitioner.
2007;29(2):52-61.
7. Hartmann CR. The open-face stainless steel crown: an esthetic
technique. ASDC J Dent Child. 1983;50(1):31-3.
8. Seale NS. The use of stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent.
2002;24(5):501-5.
9. Brook AH, King NM. The role of stainless crowns. Part 1.
Properties and techniques. Dent Update. 1982;9(1):25-6, 8-30.
10. Yilmaz A, Ozdemir CE, Yilmaz Y. A delayed hypersensitivity
reaction to a stainless steel crown: a case report. J
Clin Pediatr Dent. 2012;36(3):235-8. doi: 10.17796/
jcpd.36.3.d1327wn32361u04n.
11. Arunima, Ahuja V. Crowns for paediatric teeth: stainless steel
crown. J Dent Panacea. 2021;3(1):20-5. doi: 10.18231/j.
jdp.2021.005.
12. Holan G, Fuks AB, Ketlz N. Success rate of formocresol
pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel
crown vs amalga. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24(3):212-6.
13. Uhlen MM, Tseveenjav B, Wuollet E, Furuholm J, Ansteinsson
V, Mulic A, et al. Stainless-steel crowns in children: Norwegian
and Finnish dentists’ knowledge, practice and challenges.
BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):190. doi: 10.1186/s12903-
021-01556-6.
14. Afshar H, Kamali Sabeti A, Shahrabi M. Comparison of
primary molar crown dimensions with stainless steel crowns
in a sample of Iranian children. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent
Prospects. 2015;9(2):86-91. doi: 10.15171/joddd.2014.017.
15. Ghaeli R. A Comparison of Different Sizes of Four
Commercial Brands of Stainless Steel Crowns Available in
the Iranian Market with the Size of the Teeth Belong to the
Children Referred to the Faculty of Dentistry in Tabriz, Iran
[dissertation]. Tabriz: Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of
Medical Sciences; 2019. p. 11-6.
16. Nelson SJ. Wheeler’s Dental Anatomy, Physiology and
Occlusion. 11th ed. Elsevier; 2019.
17. Shahrabi M, Heidari A, Kamareh S. Comparison of primary
mandibular first molar crown dimensions with stainless
steel crowns in a sample of Iranian children. Front Dent.
2019;16(4):290-5. doi: 10.18502/fid.v16i4.2088.
18. Al-Dulaimy DA, Al-khannaq MR. Comparison between the
mesiodistal crown dimensions of second primary molar with
stainless steel crowns from different companies. J Baghdad
Coll Dent. 2021;33(1):19-27. doi: 10.26477/jbcd.v33i1.2923.
19. Barbería E, Suárez MC, Villalón G, Maroto M, García-Godoy
F. Standards for mesiodistal and buccolingual crown size and
height of primary molars in a sample of Spanish children. Eur
J Paediatr Dent. 2009;10(4):169-75.
20. Lee J, Shin TJ, Kim YJ, Kim JW, Jang KT, Lee SH, et al.
A morphometric study on stainless steel crowns of the
primary first molar using a three-dimensional scanner. J
Korean Dent Assoc. 2016;54(6):414-28. doi: 10.22974/
jkda.2016.54.6.002.
Journal of Oral Health and Oral Epidemiology
Volume 13, Issue 1
March 2024
Pages 36-41

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 April 2023
  • Revise Date: 27 February 2024
  • Accept Date: 17 August 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics