Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20354094›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Dental Association (1939)2010

Reasons for placement of restorations on previously unrestored tooth surfaces by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Marcelle M Nascimento, Valeria V Gordan, Vibeke Qvist, Mark S Litaker, D Brad Rindal, O D Williams, Jeffrey L Fellows, Lloyd K Ritchie, Ivar A Mjör, Jocelyn McClelland and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marcelle M NascimentoDepartment of Operative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Florida Health Science Center, Gainesville, Fla., USA.
Valeria V Gordan
Vibeke Qvist
Mark S Litaker
D Brad Rindal
O D Williams
Jeffrey L Fellows
Lloyd K Ritchie
Ivar A Mjör
Jocelyn McClelland
Gregg H Gilbert
Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group
University of Florida Health · US

Funding

Dental PBRN Network ChairU01DE016747 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI GILBERT, GREGG H · 2005 to 2011
$17.3M
Dental Practice-Based Research Network Coordinating CtrU01DE016746 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI FUNKHOUSER, ELLEN M · 2005 to 2011
$7.0M
NIDCR NIH HHS U01 DE016746NIDCR NIH HHS U01 DE016747NIDCR NIH HHS U01-DE-16746NIDCR NIH HHS U01-DE-16747
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe authors conducted a study to identify and quantify the reasons used by dentists in The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) for placing restorations on unrestored permanent tooth surfaces and the dental materials they used in doing so.

methodsA total of 229 DPBRN practitioner-investigators provided data from their practices regarding 9,890 consecutive restorations in 5,810 patients. Information the practitioner-investigators provided included their reasons for restoring the teeth, the specific teeth and surfaces they restored and the restorative materials they used.

resultsPrimary caries (85 percent of teeth, 8,351 of 9,890) and noncarious defects (15 percent, 1,479 of 9,890) were the main reasons participants gave for placing restorations. Participants placed restorations necessitated by caries most frequently on occlusal surfaces (49 percent, 4,091 of 8,351). They used amalgam for 47 percent of the molar restorations and 45 percent of the premolar restorations. They used directly placed resin-based composite (RBC) for 48 percent of the molar restorations, 50 percent of the premolar restorations and 93 percent of the anterior restorations.

conclusionDPBRN practitioner-investigators cited dental caries on occlusal and proximal surfaces of molar teeth as the main reasons for placing restorations on previously unrestored tooth surfaces. RBC was the material they used most commonly for occlusal and anterior restorations. Amalgam remains the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries, although the authors noted significant differences in the use of amalgam and RBC by dentists in various regions of the DPBRN.

Indexed as

AdultComposite ResinsDental AmalgamDental CariesDental ResearchDental Restoration, PermanentFemaleGeneral Practice, DentalHumansMaleScandinavian and Nordic CountriesTooth WearUnited StatesComposite ResinsDental Amalgam

Identifiers

PMID20354094
PMCPMC2848821
OpenAlexW2050459293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.