ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2015
Lack of high-quality studies comparing the effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of dental auxiliaries and dentists in performing dental care.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Republished from
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesCochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group's Specialised Register; Cochrane Oral Health Group's Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Medline; Embase; CINAHL; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness; five other databases and two trial registries. A number of dental journals were hand-searched and a grey literature search preformed. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITSs) were considered. Selection was conducted independently by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Three reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible so a narrative summary was presented.
resultsFour studies evaluated sealant placement; three found no evidence of a difference in retention rates of those placed by dental auxiliaries and dentists over a range of follow-up periods (six to 24 months). One study found that sealants placed by a dental auxiliary had lower retention rates than ones placed by a dentist after 48 months (9.0% with auxiliary versus 29.1% with dentist); but the net reduction in the number of teeth exhibiting caries was lower for teeth treated by the dental auxiliary than the dentist (three with auxiliary versus 60 with dentist, P value < 0.001). One study showed no evidence of a difference in dental decay after treatment with fissure sealants between groups. One study comparing the effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists performing ART reported no difference in survival rates of the restorations (fillings) after 12 months.
conclusionsWe only identified five studies for inclusion in this review, all of which were at high risk of bias, and four were published more than 20 years ago, highlighting the paucity of high-quality evaluations of the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of dental auxiliaries compared with dentists in performing clinical tasks. No firm conclusions could be drawn from the present review about the relative effectiveness of dental auxiliaries and dentists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25909926What 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.