Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25223822›Full record

ArticleJournal of dentistry2014

The decision to repair or replace a defective restoration is affected by who placed the original restoration: findings from the National Dental PBRN.

Valeria V Gordan, Joseph Riley, Saulo Geraldeli, O Dale Williams, Joseph C Spoto, Gregg H Gilbert, National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dentistry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Clinical Decision-Making of Repair vs. Replacement of Defective Direct Dental Restorations: A Multinational Cross-Sectional Study With Meta-Analysis.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Valeria V GordanDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, Division of Operative Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States. Electronic address: vgordan@dental.ufl.edu.
Joseph RileyDepartment of Community Dentistry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Saulo GeraldeliDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, Division of Operative Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
O Dale WilliamsDepartment of Biostatistics, Florida International University, Miami, FL, United States.
Joseph C SpotoApollo Beach, FL, United States.
Gregg H GilbertDepartment of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States.
National Dental PBRN 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-16746,NIDCR NIH HHS U01-DE-16747NIDCR NIH HHS U19 DE022516NIDCR NIH HHS U19-DE-22516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate how restoration characteristics are associated with the decision to repair or replace an existing restoration. The following hypotheses were studied: dentists who placed the original restoration are more likely to repair instead of replace restorations (H1) that are in molar teeth; (H2) that are in the upper arch; (H3) that have amalgam restorative material; (H4) if a fracture is not the primary reason for the defect; and (H5) when the restoration comprises more than one surface.

methodsThis cross-sectional study used a consecutive patient/restoration recruitment design. 194 dentists members of a dental practice-based research network recorded data on restorations in permanent teeth that needed repair or replacement.

resultsFor 6623 of the 8770 defective restorations in 6643 patients, the treatment was provided by the dentist who had not placed the original restoration (75%). The 2-way interaction revealed that dentists who had placed the original restoration often chose to repair when the defective restoration was in a molar, relative to premolar or anterior teeth (OR=2.2, p<.001); and chose to replace when the restoration had amalgam (OR=0.5, p<.001), and when it was a fracture compared to another reason (OR=0.8, p=001).

conclusionMost dentists are not conservative when they revisit a restoration that they originally placed regardless of type of failure, number of surfaces or material used. However, dentists who had placed the original restoration were significantly more likely to repair it when the defective restoration was in a molar tooth. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Most dentists who placed the original restoration were prone to replace it, however if the defective restoration was located in a molar tooth they would consider repairing it.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingDental Prosthesis RepairDental Restoration, PermanentAdultAgedCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchComposite ResinsCross-Sectional StudiesDental AmalgamDental CariesDental MaterialsDental Restoration FailureDentistsFemaleHumansComposite ResinsDental AmalgamDental MaterialsDecisionDefectivePractice-based researchRepairReplacementRestorations

Identifiers

PMID25223822
PMCPMC4253316

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.