Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20884316›Full record

ArticleJournal of dentistry2010

Methods dentists use to diagnose primary caries lesions prior to restorative treatment: findings from The Dental PBRN.

D Brad Rindal, Valeria V Gordan, Mark S Litaker, James D Bader, Jeffrey L Fellows, Vibeke Qvist, Martha C Wallace-Dawson, Mary L Anderson, Gregg H Gilbert, DPBRN Collaborative Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dentistry, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Deep learning-based caries lesion classification of primary teeth using bitewing radiographs and its comparison with dental professionals.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Generating National Dental PBRN Research Ideas Through the ToP Consensus Method Workshop.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2015
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

D Brad RindalHealthPartners Dental Group, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Donald.B.Rindal@HealthPartners.com
Valeria V Gordan
Mark S Litaker
James D Bader
Jeffrey L Fellows
Vibeke Qvist
Martha C Wallace-Dawson
Mary L Anderson
Gregg H Gilbert
DPBRN Collaborative Group
HealthPartners · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USRoyal Danish Defence College · DKUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · 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

objectiveTo (1) quantify the diagnostic techniques used by Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN) dentists before they decide to treat primary caries lesions surgically and (2) examine whether certain dentist, practice, and patient characteristics are associated with their use.

methodsA total of 228 DPBRN dentists recorded information on 5676 consecutive restorations inserted due to primary caries lesions on 3751 patients. Practitioner-investigators placed a mean of 24.9 (SD=12.4) restorations. Lesions were categorised as posterior proximal, anterior proximal, posterior occlusal, posterior smooth, or anterior smooth. Techniques used to diagnose the lesion were categorised as clinical assessment, radiographs, and/or optical. Statistical analysis utilised generalised mixed-model ANOVA to account for the hierarchical structure of the data.

resultsBy lesion category, the diagnostic technique combinations used most frequently were clinical assessment plus radiographs for posterior proximal (47%), clinical assessment for anterior proximal (51%), clinical assessment for posterior occlusal (46%), clinical assessment for posterior smooth (77%), and clinical assessment for anterior smooth (80%). Diagnostic technique was significantly associated with lesion category after adjusting for clustering in dentists (p<0.0001).

conclusionThese results - obtained during actual clinical procedures rather than from questionnaire-based hypothetical scenarios - quantified the diagnostic techniques most commonly used during the actual delivery of routine restorative care. Diagnostic technique varied by lesion category and with certain practice and patient characteristics.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Dentists'Analysis of VarianceChi-Square DistributionCross-Sectional StudiesDental CariesDental Caries Activity TestsDental ResearchFemaleGroup Practice, DentalHumansInsurance, DentalLightLogistic ModelsMaleOdds RatioPrivate Practice

Identifiers

PMID20884316
PMCPMC3267573
OpenAlexW1984789727

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.