Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29489883›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Mechanical properties of provisional dental materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Daniela Astudillo-Rubio, Andrés Delgado-Gaete, Carlos Bellot-Arcís, José María Montiel-Company, Agustín Pascual-Moscardó, José Manuel Almerich-Silla

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Daniela Astudillo-RubioDepartment of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Andrés Delgado-GaeteDepartment of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Carlos Bellot-ArcísOrthodontics Teaching Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
José María Montiel-CompanyPreventive Dentistry Teaching Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3952-7681
Agustín Pascual-MoscardóDental Pathology and Therapeutics Teaching Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
José Manuel Almerich-SillaPreventive Dentistry Teaching Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Provisional restorations represent an important phase during the rehabilitation process, knowledge of the mechanical properties of the available materials allows us to predict their clinical performance. At present, there is no systematic review, which supports the clinicians' criteria, in the selection of a specific material over another for a particular clinical situation. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare the mechanical properties of dimethacrylates and monomethacrylates used in fabricating direct provisional restorations, in terms of flexural strength, fracture toughness and hardness. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, the New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report and were complemented by hand-searching, with no limitation of time or language up to January 10, 2017. Studies that assess and compare the mechanical properties of dimethacrylate- and monomethacrylate-based provisional restoration materials were selected. A quality assessment of full-text articles were performed according to modified ARRIVE and CONSORT criteria and modified Cochrane Collaboration's tool for in vitro studies. Initially, 256 articles were identified. After removing the duplicates and applying the selection criteria, 24 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis and 7 were included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). It may be concluded that dimethacrylate-based provisional restorations presented better mechanical behavior than monomethacrylate-based ones in terms of flexural strength and hardness. Fracture toughness showed no significant differences. Within the monomethacrylate group, polymethylmethacrylate showed greater flexural strength than polyethylmethacrylate.

Indexed as

Stress, MechanicalDental MaterialsHumansMaterials TestingPolymethacrylic AcidsDental MaterialsPolymethacrylic Acids

Identifiers

PMID29489883
PMCPMC5830998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.