ArticleJournal of medical systems2003
Evaluation of performance of dental providers on posterior restorations: does experience matter? A data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Multifactorial Contributors to the Longevity of Dental Restorations: An Integrated Review of Related Factors.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
- Does a new formula have an input in the clinical success of posterior composite restorations? A chat study.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
- Technical efficiency and its influencing factors in Malaysian hospital pharmacy services.Health care management science · 2019Article
- Determinants of efficiency in reducing child mortality in developing countries. The role of inequality and government effectiveness.Health care management science · 2017Article
- Survival characteristics of composite restorations in primary teeth.Clinical oral investigations · 2015Article
- A 24-month evaluation of amalgam and resin-based composite restorations: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to discern what factors affect the longevity of amalgam and of composite restorations by dentists who perform posterior restorations. Data are obtained from the Washington Dental Service and contain 1.5 million patient encounters representing visits to 23,000 providers from January 1993 through 31 December 1999. Analysis of provider performance is estimated through Data Envelopment Analysis. The principal finding is that the most efficient dentists produce posterior restorations that survive almost 5 months (4.6 months) longer than those by inefficient providers (chi2 = 18.98, p < 0.0001). The findings suggest that there is no difference in restoration longevity between amalgam and composite restorations when the restoration is performed by efficient provider.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14584621What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.