ArticleJournal of dentistry2011
Association between caries location and restorative material treatment provided.
Article in Journal of dentistry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dental amalgam restorations in nationally representative sample of US population aged ≥15 years: NHANES 2011-2016.Journal of public health dentistry · 2021Article
- Article
- Role of filler and functional group conversion in the evolution of properties in polymeric dental restoratives.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2014Article
- Differences between reported and actual restored caries lesion depths: results from The Dental PBRN.Journal of dentistry · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis cross-sectional study by the Northwest PRECEDENT practitioners correlated the location of caries diagnosed in the past 12 months with treatment provided.
methodsAn oral health survey was conducted on up to 20 patients per practice for 101 practises in the Northwest PRECEDENT network. A total of 1943 eligible patients were randomly assessed for the location of and treatment provided for caries lesions diagnosed within the past 12 months. Regression analysis using generalized estimating equations (GEE) was performed to assess association of treatment to tooth location and surface characterization, adjusting for age, practice location (urban/rural), dentist gender, and experience level. The analysis accounts for clustering by practice using robust variance estimates.
resultsOverall, 55.4% of patients exhibited recent caries and 42.8% received treatment for at least one permanent tooth. 18% of treated teeth were treated with amalgam, and 72% were treated with composite. This percentage varied as a function of tooth surface characteristics, patient characteristics, and dentist characteristics. The results suggest that restoration selection does depend on tooth type and which surfaces are being restored. The odds of a molar receiving an amalgam restoration are 2.44 (95% CI=1.81-3.30) times higher as compared to a bicuspid, adjusting for all other covariates. When the restoration includes the occlusal surface of a tooth the odds are 0.42 (95% CI=0.20-0.89) times as great that amalgam will be placed. When the restoration includes the mesial or distal surface of the tooth the odds for amalgam restoration are 2.49 (95% CI=1.25-4.95) times higher compared to when it does not include these surfaces.
conclusionRestorative material choice varied based on caries location and practitioner gender.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.