ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2007
Preformed metal crowns may last longer than fillings.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Non-invasive treatment approach for hypomineralised second primary molars using preformed metal crowns: results after 1-year follow-up.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesSearches were made using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase and the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE). STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) were chosen that assessed the effectiveness of PMC, compared with filling materials or in children where there had been no treatment of tooth decay in one or more primary molar teeth. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Forty-seven records were retrieved by the search strategies, some of which proved to be duplicates. Ultimately, 14 studies were scrutinised. None met the inclusion criteria and six studies were excluded from the review because they were either retrospective in design or they reported prospective outcomes but were not randomised.
conclusionsNo RCT were available for appraisal. Although the use of PMC is recommended in clinical practice by the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD), the evidence to support this is not strong, consisting mainly of case reports and uncontrolled studies. The lower quality levels of evidence that have been produced nevertheless have some strength, since clinical outcomes are consistently in favour of PMC even though many studies analyse casts placed on the most damaged of the pair of teeth. It is important that the absence of evidence for PMC is not misinterpreted as evidence for their lack of efficacy.
Identifiers
17410196What 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.