ArticleInternational dental journal2013
What happens to cavitated primary teeth over time? A 3.5-year prospective cohort study in China.
Article in International dental journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Caries management strategies for primary molars: 1-yr randomized control trial results.Journal of dental research · 2014Trial
- Minimal intervention dentistry for treating primary teeth: a survey study among members of the Israeli Society of Paediatric Dentistry.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Article
- Evaluation of proximal slicing in primary maxillary incisors with proximal caries- a retrospective cohort study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Article
- Minimal intervention dentistry in the management of the paediatric patient.British dental journal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesData showed that among 5-year-old Chinese, 96.7% of cavitated primary teeth were left untreated. The study aimed to report on the course of cavitated primary teeth within the Chinese health-care system over a period of 3.5 years.
methodsSelection of high caries risk children for inclusion in a sealant comparison study was based on the presence of cavitated dentine lesions in their primary teeth. At the 6-month sealant evaluation point many of these cavitated dentine lesions had not been treated. This necessitated monitoring these cavitated teeth 6-monthly for those exfoliated, restored, with a cavity left open, having caused toothache (symptom) and having (or having had) an abscess or fistulae (symptom). Care-seeking instruction was given at every evaluation point. anova and t-test were used in analysing the data.
resultsA total of 1012 cavitated primary teeth in 305 children (7.6 to 9.3 years old), were followed for 3.5 years. A total of 92.9% of cavitated primary teeth were left open, while 7.1% were restored at some stage during the observation period; 98.5% of restored teeth and 95.5% of cavitated teeth left open exfoliated and 93.9% of restored teeth and 81.5% of cavitated primary teeth left open exfoliated without any symptoms. Having (or having had) toothache was the symptom most frequently related to exfoliated restored teeth and to exfoliated cavitated teeth left open. Restored primary teeth survived statistically significantly longer than cavitated primary teeth left open: 1.99 ± 0.07 years and 1.68 ± 0.03 years, respectively.
conclusionThe large majority of cavitated primary teeth in this child population exfoliated without symptoms.
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.