Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24808696›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry2014

Factors affecting the placement or replacement of direct restorations in a dental school.

Samara Silvani, Roberta Ferreira Trivelato, Ruchele Dias Nogueira, Luciano de Souza Gonçalves, Vinícius Rangel Geraldo-Martins

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Samara SilvaniDepartment of restorative dentistry, Biomaterials Division, School of Dentistry, Uberaba University, Uberaba, Brazil.
Roberta Ferreira TrivelatoDepartment of restorative dentistry, Biomaterials Division, School of Dentistry, Uberaba University, Uberaba, Brazil.
Ruchele Dias NogueiraDepartment of restorative dentistry, Biomaterials Division, School of Dentistry, Uberaba University, Uberaba, Brazil.
Luciano de Souza GonçalvesDepartment of restorative dentistry, Biomaterials Division, School of Dentistry, Uberaba University, Uberaba, Brazil.
Vinícius Rangel Geraldo-MartinsDepartment of restorative dentistry, Biomaterials Division, School of Dentistry, Uberaba University, Uberaba, Brazil.
Universidade de Uberaba · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe knowledge of the reasons for the placement of direct restorations makes possible to trace an epidemiological profile of a specific population and to direct the teaching of dentistry to techniques that are commonly used today and will be continued performed in the future. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to verify the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations in patients treated in the Dental Clinic of the Uberaba University - Brazil. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis study evaluated 306 restorative procedures carried out on 60 patients. During the treatment planning, a form that contained information about the patient's gender, tooth number, the classification of restorations, the reasons for placement and replacement of amalgam and tooth-colored restorations, the material that had to be removed and the new material used to fill the cavities was filled for each patient. Statistical analysis was carried out using Chi-square test (α = 0.05).

resultsThe data showed that most of the patients were female (66.7%). Of all the restorations placed, 60.45% were 1(st)-time placements, while 39.55% were replacements. For 1(st)-time restorations, the main reason for placement was primary caries (76.76%), followed by non-carious cervical lesions (15.14%). The amalgam restorations were replaced more frequently (67.77%). The primary reason for replacements was the presence of secondary caries (for both previous amalgam (42.68%) and composite (66.67%) restorations (P < 0.05). The resin composite was the most indicated material for the new restorations (98.04%) (P < 0.05).

conclusionsThe main reason for placement of direct restorations was primary caries, while secondary caries was the main reason for replacements. In almost all cases, the material used to fill the cavities was the resin composite.

Indexed as

Amalgamcariescompositedirect restorations

Identifiers

PMID24808696
PMCPMC4012118
OpenAlexW2164326460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.