ArticleBritish dental journal2015
An exploratory study to investigate if patients are able to aid the early diagnosis of peri-implant complications.
Article in British dental journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issuedErratum.2015
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study investigated if the patient can have a role in reporting early peri-implant complications.
designAn exploratory, single-centred study comparing patient's perceptions of implant success to the clinical success at an examination. SETTING, MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-five patients were randomly selected from patients who had received implant treatment at an implant referral practice. Phase 1 - Patient perception: Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire relating to the health of their implants. Phase 2 - Clinical examination: The patients were examined for implant health/disease.
main outcome measuresThe responses from the patient perception questionnaires were correlated to the variables of the clinical examination. The null hypothesis 'Patients cannot perceive the difference between a successful implant and an implant that is suffering from complications' was then tested using Fisher's exact test.
resultsAll the variables tested statistically show a positive association between patient perception and clinical examination (p <0.001). All variables gave a significant result for Fisher's exact test. Therefore, the null hypothesis can be rejected.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that using validated questions an educated patient can perceive peri-implant health/disease. This can play a role in the early diagnosis of peri-implant complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26068160What 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.