Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23633698›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American Dental Association (1939)2013

Treatments for hypersensitive noncarious cervical lesions: a Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network randomized clinical effectiveness study.

Analia Veitz-Keenan, Julie Ann Barna, Brad Strober, Abigail G Matthews, Damon Collie, Donald Vena, Frederick A Curro, Van P Thompson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Non-surgical management of tooth hypersensitivity.International dental journal · 2016
    Review
  12. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Analia Veitz-KeenanOral & Maxillofacial Pathology, Radiology and Medicine, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York City, USA.
Julie Ann Barna
Brad Strober
Abigail G Matthews
Damon Collie
Donald Vena
Frederick A Curro
Van P Thompson
University of Dental Medicine · MM

Funding

Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and LearningU01DE016755 · NIDCR · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI CURRO, FREDERICK ANTHONY · 2005 to 2011
$17.3M
NIDCR NIH HHS U01 DE016755NIDCR NIH HHS U01-DE016755
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network conducted a three-armed randomized clinical study to determine the comparative effectiveness of three treatments for hypersensitive noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs): use of a potassium nitrate dentifrice for treatment of hypersensitivity, placement of a resin-based composite restoration and placement of a sealant.

methodsSeventeen trained practitioner-investigators (P-Is) in the PEARL Network enrolled participants (N = 304) with hypersensitive posterior NCCLs who met enrollment criteria. Participants were assigned to treatments randomly. Evaluations were conducted at baseline and at one, three and six months thereafter. Primary outcomes were the reduction or elimination of hypersensitivity as measured clinically and by means of patient-reported outcomes.

resultsLesion depth and pretreatment sensitivity (mean, 5.3 on a 0- to 10-point scale) were balanced across treatments, as was sleep bruxism (present in 42.2 percent of participants). The six-month participant recall rate was 99 percent. Treatments significantly reduced mean sensitivity (P < .01), with the sealant and restoration groups displaying a significantly higher reduction (P < .01) than did the dentifrice group. The dentifrice group's mean (standard deviation) sensitivity at six months was 2.1 (2.1); those of the sealant and restoration groups were 1.0 (1.6) and 0.8 (1.4), respectively. Patient-reported sensitivity (to cold being most pronounced) paralleled clinical measurements at each evaluation.

conclusionsSealing and restoration treatments were effective overall in reducing NCCL hypersensitivity. The potassium nitrate dentifrice reduced sensitivity with increasing effectiveness through six months but not to the degree offered by the other treatments. Practical Implications. Sealant or restoration placement is an effective method of immediately reducing NCCL sensitivity. Although a potassium nitrate dentifrice did reduce sensitivity slowly across six months, at no time was the reduction commensurate with that of sealants or restorations.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchComposite ResinsDental Restoration, PermanentDentifricesDentin-Bonding AgentsDentin Desensitizing AgentsDentin SensitivityFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLight-Curing of Dental AdhesivesMaleMethacrylatesMiddle AgedNitratesPit and Fissure SealantsClearfil Liner Bond 2Clearfil S3 BondComposite ResinsDentifricesDentin-Bonding AgentsDentin Desensitizing AgentsMethacrylatesNitratesPit and Fissure SealantsPotassium Compoundspotassium nitratepremise composite resinResin Cementsbruxismdental sealantdentifricesdentin-bonding agentsmolarNoncarious cervical lesionoperative dentistrypremolarresin-based compositerestorative dentistryroot sensitivity

Identifiers

PMID23633698
PMCPMC4264588
OpenAlexW70934079

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.