Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29621757›Full record

SynthesisCaries research2018

Secondary Caries in situ Models: A Systematic Review.

Audrey C C Hollanders, Nicolien K Kuper, Tamires T Maske, Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Caries research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04059250 (Nobio In Situ Clinical Study - Pilot Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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.

NCT04059250 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Nobio In Situ Clinical Study - Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2019 to 2020Enrolled25ConditionsDental Caries, Denture, Partial, RemovableArmsNobio composite, traditional composite
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

4 authors.

Audrey C C HollandersDepartment of Dentistry, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlandsaudrey.hollanders@radboudumc.nl.
Nicolien K KuperDepartment of Dentistry, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Tamires T MaskeSchool of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Marie-Charlotte D N J M HuysmansDepartment of Dentistry, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In situ caries research serves as a bridge between clinical research and laboratory studies. In this kind of research, volunteers wear a removable intraoral splint or prosthesis containing research samples. Many different in situ models exist to investigate secondary caries. This systematic review compared currently existing secondary caries models and their lesion progression per day values. MATERIALS AND

methodsThree databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for relevant literature. Bias risk was assessed and model parameters and caries-related outcomes were extracted by 2 independent researchers. Where possible, caries-related outcomes were normalized by estimating lesion progression per day by dividing lesion depth extracted from microradiographic or microhardness data by the number of days the study lasted.

resultsThe literature search identified 335 articles. After eliminating duplicates and selection, 31 articles were included. The models differed greatly on factors such as sample location, presence of fluoride in the model, and analysis methods. Three main groups could be identified by sample placement; 68% of models placed samples palatally in the upper jaw, and the lower jaw model could be divided into the buccal (26%) and approximal (6%) areas. Average lesion progression in enamel next to composite was 4.3 ± 2.8 µm (range1.1-8.8 µm/day). DISCUSSION: Studies conducted with palatal models showed caries progression rates 2-5 times higher than the estimated clinical progression rates. Lesion progression per day could be a useful tool for future comparison of models and establishing a standardized model.

Indexed as

Models, DentalDental CariesDental ProsthesisDental ResearchDisease ProgressionHumansIn situ modelsRecurrent cariesSecondary caries

Identifiers

PMID29621757
PMCPMC6492519

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.