ArticleThe Journal of prosthetic dentistry2018
Quantitative percussion diagnostics as an indicator of the level of the structural pathology of teeth: Retrospective follow-up investigation of high-risk sites that remained pathological after restorative treatment.
Article in The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment preferences related to pulpectomy and prosthetic restorations among Lithuanian general dentists and prosthodontists.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Quantitative Percussion Diagnostics (QPD): Seeing What the Eye Can't With Objective Structural Data.Cureus · 2026Article
- Diagnosis of cracked tooth: Clinical status and research progress.The Japanese dental science review · 2022Review
- Baseline characteristics as 3-year predictors of tooth fracture and crack progression: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2021Article
- Symptom changes and crack progression in untreated cracked teeth: One-year findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.Journal of dentistry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
statement of problemStructural damage may remain even after a tooth is restored. Conventional diagnostic aids do not quantify the severity of structural damage or allow the monitoring of structural changes after restoration. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to provide an in-depth analysis of 9 high-risk sites after restoration. The analysis followed structural defects found upon disassembly, restorative materials used, therapeutic procedures provided, current longevity, and long-term quantitative percussion diagnostics (QPD) to monitor results. The hypothesis was that QPD can be used to quantify positive and negative changes in structural stability. MATERIAL AND
methodsSixty sites requiring restoration were part of an institutional review board-approved clinical study. Each participant was examined comprehensively, including QPD testing, at each follow-up. Long-term changes in normal fit error (NFE) values after restoration were evaluated according to a pathology rating system established in an earlier publication. Nine highly compromised sites were chosen for further analysis and monitored for an additional 6 years.
resultsOf the 9 high-risk sites (NFE>0.04), 7 sites improved and 2 sites deteriorated. Potential causes for each trend were documented.
conclusionsThe data support the hypothesis that QPD can be used to monitor changes in structural stability after restoration. Knowledge of changes in advance of any symptoms allows further preventive or therapeutic intervention before serious structural damage can occur. Follow-up QPD indications of site improvement can also assure the clinician of the desired structural outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.