Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27492046›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Dental Association (1939)2016

Treatment recommendations for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Michael S McCracken, David R Louis, Mark S Litaker, Helena M Minyé, Rahma Mungia, Valeria V Gordan, Don G Marshall, Gregg H Gilbert, National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Remake Rates for Single-Unit Crowns in Clinical Practice: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2019
    Article
  16. Preparation Techniques Used to Make Single-Unit Crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2018
    Article
  17. Impression Techniques Used for Single-Unit Crowns: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Michael S McCracken
David R Louis
Mark S Litaker
Helena M Minyé
Rahma Mungia
Valeria V Gordan
Don G Marshall
Gregg H Gilbert
National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Collaborative Group

Funding

The National Dental PBRNU19DE022516 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI GILBERT, GREGG H · 2012 to 2018
$66.4M
NIDCR NIH HHS U19 DE022516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objectives of this study were to quantify practitioner variation in likelihood to recommend a crown and test whether certain dentist, practice, and clinical factors are associated significantly with this likelihood.

methodsDentists in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network completed a questionnaire about indications for single-unit crowns. In 4 clinical scenarios, practitioners ranked their likelihood of recommending a single-unit crown. The authors used these responses to calculate a dentist-specific crown factor (range, 0-12). A higher score implied a higher likelihood of recommending a crown. The authors tested certain characteristics for statistically significant associations with the crown factor.

resultsA total of 1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists (83%) responded. Practitioners were most likely to recommend crowns for teeth that were fractured, cracked, or endodontically treated or had a broken restoration. Practitioners overwhelmingly recommended crowns for posterior teeth treated endodontically (94%). Practice owners, practitioners in the Southwest, and practitioners with a balanced workload were more likely to recommend crowns, as were practitioners who used optical scanners for digital impressions.

conclusionsThere is substantial variation in the likelihood of recommending a crown. Although consensus exists in some areas (posterior endodontic treatment), variation dominates in others (size of an existing restoration). Recommendations varied according to type of practice, network region, practice busyness, patient insurance status, and use of optical scanners. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Recommendations for crowns may be influenced by factors unrelated to tooth and patient variables. A concern for tooth fracture-whether from endodontic treatment, fractured teeth, or large restorations-prompted many clinicians to recommend crowns.

Indexed as

CrownsPatient Care PlanningAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchDecision MakingHumansPractice Patterns, Dentists'ProbabilitySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatescrownsDentistryprosthodontics

Identifiers

PMID27492046
PMCPMC5086281

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.