Custom‑made versus prefabricated zirconia crowns for primary molars: A 12‑month follow‑up.

Background: Many practitioners have questioned whether the construction method of pediatric zirconia crowns impacts the periodontal health and clinical performance of severely decayed primary molars. The objective of this study was to compare the periodontal health and clinical performance of primary molars restored with custom‑made zirconia crowns (CZCs) and prefabricated zirconia crowns. Methods: Twenty primary molars indicated for crown restorations were selected from ten patients (5–9 years old) randomly. Each patient received two pediatric zirconia crowns constructed by two different methods: one custom‑made and one prefabricated. The primary molars were divided into two groups: Group 1: primary molars received CZCs and Group 2: primary molars received prefabricated zirconia crowns (PZCs). Results: After a 12‑month follow‑up, there was no statistically significant difference between the periodontal health of primary molars restored with custom‑made and prefabricated zirconia crowns. The clinical performance of primary molars restored with CZCs was statistically significantly higher than those restored with PZCs in terms of retention and fracture resistance (P ≤ 0.05). Conclusions: The construction method of pediatric zirconia crowns does not significantly affect the periodontal health of primary molars; however, clinical performance is significantly affected in terms of retention and fracture resistance. Clinical Significance: A CZC is an excellent alternative option, especially for primary molars whose permanent successors still have a long time to erupt. The PZC is a quick and easy restoration, but the technique is sensitive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]