The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Clinical Performance and Parental Satisfaction with Composite Strip Crown and Prefabricated Zirconia Crown for Primary Anterior Teeth: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Lilavanti L Vaghela, Rohan K Bhatt, Chhaya N Patel, Kaushal R Joshi

Keywords : Early childhood caries, Likert scale, Strip crown, Zirconia crown

Citation Information : Vaghela LL, Bhatt RK, Patel CN, Joshi KR. Clinical Performance and Parental Satisfaction with Composite Strip Crown and Prefabricated Zirconia Crown for Primary Anterior Teeth: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (12):1462-1470.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3264

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-05-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim: To compare clinical performance and parental satisfaction with composite strip crown and prefabricated zirconia crown for primary anterior teeth. Materials and methods: The study compares clinical evaluation and parental satisfaction of two different crowns for primary anterior teeth. A total of 102 teeth in each group selected between ages 3 and 6 years, who met the inclusion criteria, were randomly allocated into two groups for further evaluation. Group A for strip crowns (55 teeth) and group B for zirconia crowns (47 teeth). The crowns were evaluated clinically with various criteria like—color match, crown retention, gingival health, crown contour, opposing tooth wear, marginal integrity, and recurrent caries. The samples were also evaluated for parental satisfaction based on 5-point Likert scale and child liking was also recorded with Smiley face Likert scale at baseline, 3 and 9 months. Statistical analysis was done using Chi-square test (p <0.05). Results: Zirconia crowns showed better color match, crown retention, crown contour, and gingival health. Strip crowns showed more discoloration and chipping of material over a period of time. None of the samples showed opposing tooth wear, open margins, and recurrent caries in strip and zirconia crown group. Parents and children both were highly satisfied with zirconia crowns. Conclusion: Clinically zirconia crowns showed higher success rate as compared to strip crowns and parental overall satisfaction was higher for zirconia crowns. Clinical significance: Zirconia crowns exhibited a higher clinical performance and parental satisfaction; hence, if affordability is out weighted, zirconia crown stands better with esthetics of the child.

  1. American Academy on Pediatric Dentistry, American Academy of Pediatrics. Policy on Early Childhood Caries (ECC): classifications, consequences, and preventive strategies. Pediatr Dent 2018;30: 40–43. PMID: 19216381.
  2. Zafar S, Harnekar SY, Siddiqi A. Early childhood caries: etiology, clinical considerations, consequences and management. Int Dent SA 2009;11(4):26–36.
  3. Fung MHT, Wong MCM, Lo ECM, et al. Early childhood caries: a literature review. Oral Hyg Health 2013;1(1):107–112. DOI: 10.4172/johh.1000107.
  4. Berkowitz RJ. Causes, treatment and prevention of early childhood caries: a microbiologic perspective. J Can Dent Assoc 2003;69(5): 304–307. PMID: 12734024.
  5. Usha M, Deepak V, Venkat S, et al. Treatment of severely mutilated incisors: a challenge to the pedodontist. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007;25:S34–S36. PMID: 17921639.
  6. Schwartz S. Full coverage aesthetic restoration of anterior primary teeth. Crest® Oral-B® at Continuing Education Course. 2015.
  7. Innes NPT, Ricketts DNJ, Evans DJP. Preformed metal crowns for decayed primary molar teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(1):CD005512. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005512.pub2.
  8. Webber DL, Epstein NB, Wong JW, et al. A method of restoring primary anterior teeth with the aid of a celluloid crown form and composite resins. Pediatr Dent 1979;1(4):244–246. PMID: 298766.
  9. Salami A. Bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: clinical tips for successful outcome. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(2):145–148. PMID: 11991317.
  10. Zarone F, Russo S, Sorrentino R. From porcelain-fused- to-metal to zirconia: clinical and experimental considerations. Dent Mater 2011;27(1):83–96. DOI: 10.1016/
  11. Al-Amleh B, Lyons K, Swain M. Clinical trials in zirconia: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37(8):641–652. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02094.x.
  12. Clark L, Wells M, Harris E, et al. Comparison of amount of primary tooth reduction required for anterior and posterior zirconia and stainless-steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2016;38(1):42–46. PMID: 26892214.
  13. Nobile CGA, Fortunato L, Bianco A, et al. Pattern and severity of early childhood caries in Southern Italy: a preschoolbased cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2014;14:206–212. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-206.
  14. Alonso V, Caserio M. A clinical study of direct composite full-coverage crowns: long-term results. Oper Dent 2012;37(4):432–441. DOI: 10.2341/11-229-S.
  15. Walia T, Salami AA, Bashiri R, et al. A randomised controlled trial of three aesthetic full-coronal restorations in primary maxillary teeth. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2015;15(2):113–118. PMID: 25102458.
  16. Kupietzky A, Waggoner WF, Glea J. The clinical and radiographic success of bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors. Pediatr Dent 2003;25(6):577–581. PMID: 14733473.
  17. Waggoner WF. Restorative dentistry for the primary dentition. 4th ed. Philadelphia: WB Sounders Co; 2005.
  18. Ram D, Fuks AB. Clinical performance of resin bonded composite strip crowns in primary incisors: a retrospective study. Int J Paediatr Dent 2006;16(1):49–54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00680.x.
  19. Kupietzky A, Waggoner W, Galea J. Long term photographic and radiographic assessment of bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: results after 3 years. Pediatr Dent 2005;27(3): 221–225. PMID: 16173227.
  20. Alaki SM, Abdulhadi BS, AbdElBaki MA, et al. Comparing zirconia to anterior strip crowns in primary anterior teeth in children: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 2020;20(1):313. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01305-1.
  21. Hackmyer SP, Donly KJ. Restorative dentistry for the pediatric patient. Tex Dent J 2010;127(11):1165–1171. PMID: 21309276.
  22. Erdemci ZY, Cehreli SB, Tirali RE. Hall versus conventional stainless steel crown techniques: in vitro investigation of marginal fit and microleakage using three different luting agents. Pediatr Dent 2011;36(4):286–290. PMID: 25197992.
  23. Sener I, Turker B, Valandro LF, et al. Marginal gap, cement thickness, and microleakage of 2 zirconia crown systems luted with glass ionomer and MDP-based cements. Gen Dent 2014;62:67–70. PMID: 24598500.
  24. Memarpour M, Derafshi R, Razavi M. Comparison of microleakage from stainless steel crowns margins used with different restorative materials: an in vitro study. Dent Res J 2016;13(1):7–12. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.174689.
  25. Padbury Jr A, Eber R, Wang H-L. Interactions between the gingiva and the margin of restorations. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30(5): 379–385. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2003.01277.x.
  26. Lee JK. Restoration of primary anterior teeth: a review of literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(5):506–511. PMID: 12412966.
  27. Kupietzky A, Waggoner WF. Parental satisfaction with bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors. Pediatr Dent 2004;26(4):337–340. PMID: 15344627.
  28. DeLong R, Sasik C, Pintado MR, et al. The wear of enamel when opposed by ceramic systems. J Dent Mater 1989;5(4):266–271. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(89)90073-0.
  29. Holsinger DM, Wells MH, Scarbecz M, et al. Clinical evaluation and parental satisfaction with pediatric zirconia anterior crowns. Pediatr Dent 2016;38(3):192–197. PMID: 27306242.
  30. Joshi A, Kale S, Chandel S, et al. Likert scale: explored and explained. Br J Appl Sci Technol 2015;7(4):396–403. DOI: 10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975.
  31. Edmondson DR. Likert scales: a history. In: Proceedings of the 12th conference on historical analysis and research in marketing (CHARM) 2005. April 28–May 1, California, USA.
  32. Mcleod S. Likert Scale. 2014.
  33. Lobsy J, Wetmore A. CDC coffee break: using Likert scales in evaluation survey. 2014.
  34. Tsang KK. The use of midpoint on Likert scale: the implications for educational research. Hong Kong Teachers Centre J 2012;11:121–130. PMCLD: 2834292.
  35. Malhotra NK. Questionnaire design and scale development. In: Grover R, Vriens M, editors. The handbook of marketing research. California: Sage Publications, Inc; 2006.
  36. Haddad S, King S, Osmond P, et al. Questionnaire design to determine children's thermal sensation, preference and acceptability in the classroom. In: 28th international PLEA conference. 2012.
  37. Van Laerhoven H, van der Zaag-Loonen HJ, Derkx BHF. A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children's questionnaires. Acta Paediatr 2004;93(6):830–835. DOI: 10.1080/08035250410026572.
  38. Mellor D, Moore KA. The use of likert scales with children. J Pediatr Psychol 2014;39(3):369–379. DOI: 10.1093/jpepsy/jst079.
  39. Roberto CA, Baik J, Harris JL, et al. Influence of licensed characters on children's taste and snack preferences. Pediatrics 2010;126(1):88–93. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-3433.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.