Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23729455›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Dental Association (1939)2013

A 24-month evaluation of amalgam and resin-based composite restorations: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Michael S McCracken, Valeria V Gordan, Mark S Litaker, Ellen Funkhouser, Jeffrey L Fellows, Douglass G Shamp, Vibeke Qvist, Jeffrey S Meral, Gregg H Gilbert, National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Michael S McCrackenDepartment of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA.
Valeria V Gordan
Mark S Litaker
Ellen Funkhouser
Jeffrey L Fellows
Douglass G Shamp
Vibeke Qvist
Jeffrey S Meral
Gregg H Gilbert
National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group

Funding

The National Dental PBRNU19DE022516 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI GILBERT, GREGG H · 2012 to 2018
$66.4M
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-16747NIDCR NIH HHS U19 DE022516NIDCR NIH HHS U19-DE-22516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKnowing which factors influence restoration longevity can help clinicians make sound treatment decisions. The authors analyzed data from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network to identify predictors of early failures of amalgam and resin-based composite (RBC) restorations.

methodsIn this prospective cohort study, the authors gathered information from clinicians and offices participating in the network. Clinicians completed a baseline data collection form at the time of restoration placement and annually thereafter. Data collected included patient factors, practice factors and dentist factors, and the authors analyzed them by using mixed-model logistic regression.

resultsA total of 226 practitioners followed up 6,218 direct restorations in 3,855 patients; 386 restorations failed (6.2 percent) during the mean (standard deviation) follow-up of 23.7 (8.8) months. The number of tooth surfaces restored at baseline helped predict subsequent restoration failure; restorations with four or more restored surfaces were more than four times more likely to fail. Restorative material was not associated significantly with longevity; neither was tooth type. Older patient age was associated highly with failure (P < .001). The failure rate for children was 4 percent, compared with 10 percent for people 65 years or older. Dentist's sex and practice workload were associated significantly with restoration longevity.

conclusionsIn this prospective cohort study, these factors were significantly predictive of failure for amalgam and RBC restorations: patient's age, a higher number of surfaces restored at baseline, the dentist's sex and the practice workload. Material choice was not significantly predictive in these early results. Practical Implications. If clinicians can recognize and identify the risk factors associated with early restoration failure, more effective treatment plans may be offered to the patient.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchComposite ResinsDental AmalgamDental MaterialsDental Prosthesis RepairDental Restoration FailureDental Restoration, PermanentDentistsFemaleComposite ResinsDental AmalgamDental Materialsamalgamdecision makingdental restorationsDirect restorationsevidence-based dentistryoperative dentistryresin-based composite

Identifiers

PMID23729455
PMCPMC3694730

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.