Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27255959›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2017

Attitudes, practice, and experience of German dentists regarding repair restorations.

Philipp Kanzow, Robin Hoffmann, Claudia Tschammler, Jochen Kruppa, Tina Rödig, Annette Wiegand

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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.

NCT02975635 unknown statusnot on this map

Patients' Preferences for Repair Versus Replacement Restorations

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of GöttingenRan2017 to 2021Enrolled100ConditionsPatient PreferenceArmsQuestionnaire
NCT03279874 completednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Qualitative Interview Study Regarding Dentists' Repair Behaviour

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of GöttingenRan2018 to 2021Enrolled10ConditionsBehaviorArmsInterviews
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations.Current oral health reports · 2018
    Review
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

6 authors.

Philipp KanzowDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany. philipp.kanzow@med.uni-goettingen.de.
Robin HoffmannDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Claudia TschammlerDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Jochen KruppaDepartment of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Humboldtallee 32, Göttingen, 37073, Germany.
Tina RödigDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.
Annette WiegandDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the present study was to perform a representative survey among German dentists about attitudes, practice, and experience regarding single-tooth repair restorations. MATERIALS AND

methodsAn anonymous questionnaire was designed and mailed to all registered dentists in Lower Saxony (n = 6600). Twenty-eight percent were returned (n = 1852), and n = 1805 could be analyzed. Statistical analyses were done by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and ordered logistic regressions (p < 0.05).

resultsOnly 2.2 % of the dentists declared to never perform repair restorations. Composite restorations were repaired significantly more often than all other materials. Frequency of performing repair restorations was partially associated to dentist-related factors. The decision for repairing a restoration was dependent on several tooth- and restoration-associated variables. The main indications for repair were the partial loss of restoration or adjacent tooth structure as well as chipping and endodontic access cavities of crowns. Repair restorations were mostly done with composite using various different preconditioning techniques. Overall patients' acceptance was reported to be high. Most of the dentists considered repair restorations as permanent restoration with a moderate to high longevity. Estimated success of repair restorations depended significantly on the dentists' experiences (frequency and techniques of repair restorations).

conclusionsRepair restorations were often performed and were well accepted by dentists and patients, but indications for repair restorations as well as applied materials and techniques varied distinctly. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Repairs of single-tooth restorations are well accepted and frequently performed, but indications, techniques, and materials require further research.

Indexed as

AdultDental Restoration RepairFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Dentists'Surveys and QuestionnairesExperiencePatient’s acceptanceQuestionnaireRepair restorationsSuccess

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.