Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28822536›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Dental Association (1939)2017

Impression evaluation and laboratory use for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Michael S McCracken, Mark S Litaker, Ashley J George, Scott Durand, Sepideh Malekpour, Don G Marshall, Cyril Meyerowitz, Lauren Carter, Valeria V Gordan, Gregg H Gilbert and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Investigation on the quality analysis of 1 312 single crown digital models.Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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
  5. 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
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

11 authors.

Michael S McCracken
Mark S Litaker
Ashley J George
Scott Durand
Sepideh Malekpour
Don G Marshall
Cyril Meyerowitz
Lauren Carter
Valeria V Gordan
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

backgroundObjectives were to determine the likelihood that a clinician accepts an impression for a single-unit crown and document crown remake rates.

methodsThe authors developed a questionnaire that asked dentists about techniques used to fabricate single-unit crowns. The authors showed dentists photographs of 4 impressions and asked them to accept or reject each impression. The authors correlated answers with dentist and practice characteristics. Other questions pertained to laboratory use and crown remake rates.

resultsThe response rate was 83% (1,777 of 2,132 eligible dentists). Of the 4 impressions evaluated, 3 received consistent responses, with 85% agreement. One impression was more equivocal; 52% accepted the impression. The likelihood of accepting an impression was associated significantly with the clinician's sex, race, ethnicity, and practice busyness. Clinicians produced 18 crowns per month on average, and 9% used in-office milling. Most dentists (59%) reported a remake rate of less than 2%, whereas 17% reported a remake rate greater than 4%. Lower remake rates were associated significantly with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays.

conclusionsAlthough dentists were largely consistent in their evaluation of impressions (> 85%), nonclinical factors were associated with whether an impression was accepted or rejected. Lower crown remake rates were associated with more experienced clinicians, optical impressions, and not using dual-arch trays. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: These results provide a snapshot of clinical care considerations among a diverse group of dentists. Clinicians can compare their own remake rates and impression evaluation techniques with those in this sample when developing best practice protocols.

Indexed as

CrownsDecision MakingDental Impression MaterialsDental Impression TechniqueDental Prosthesis DesignEsthetics, DentalHumansPractice Patterns, Dentists'Surveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesDental Impression MaterialsCrownsdental laboratoryimpressionspractice networkremake rates

Identifiers

PMID28822536
PMCPMC5793929
OpenAlexW2765266091

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.