ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2014
Attitude and awareness of dentist towards resin bonded bridges in Saudi Arabia.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-Retainer Lithium Disilicate Resin-Bonded Bridge for Mandibular Central Incisor Replacement Using CAD/CAM and Virtual Articulator: A 25-Month Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Knowledge of Saudi dental students and interns towards luting cements and their applications in fixed prosthodontics.BMC oral health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
statement of the problemResin bonded bridges (RBBs) offer a conservative approach to tooth replacement. However, the use of this treatment option has been limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitude of dentists in Saudi Arabia, including general dental practitioners (GDPs) and prosthodontic and restorative specialists (SPs), toward RBBs.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, questionnaires designed to survey knowledge of RBB performance factors were distributed to GDPs and SPs (n = 400). Specifically, opinions of GDPs and SPs regarding clinical, mechanical, technique- and patient-dependent performance factors of RBBs were obtained. Average significance and Chi-square tests were used to identify the frequency, pattern, and significance of the response variables identified.
resultsA majority (65.3%) of the subjects reported using RBBs in less than 10% of their prosthodontic cases. The most common reason for the limited clinical application of RBBs was perceived poor retention (23.45%). In addition, SPs regarded the influence of enamel structure, number of pontics, cement type, RBB design, and surface treatment as "very significant" factors with respect to RBB survival. Overall, a statistically significant difference was observed between the responses of GDPs and SPs regarding their knowledge of performance factors for RBBs.
conclusionIn comparison to SPs, GDPs reported greater disagreement with current standards for RBB success factors. Moreover, 60% of SPs and 71% of GDPs used RBBs for less than 10% of their prosthodontic cases. Therefore, continuing education opportunities are needed for practicing dentists, and undergraduate students need to receive greater exposure to the clinical application of RBBs.
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.