Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30524930›Full record

ReviewCurrent oral health reports2018

Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations.

Igor Robert Blum, Mutlu Özcan

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current oral health reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06884787 (Clinical and Subjective Evaluations of a Universal-Shade, Color Adjusting Resin Composite in Anterior Tooth Restorations), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT06884787 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Clinical and Subjective Evaluations of a Universal-Shade, Color Adjusting Resin Composite in Anterior Tooth Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorKing Abdullah University HospitalRan2025 to 2026Enrolled120ConditionsComposite ResinsArmsConventional nanohybrid multishade composite, Single shade nanohybrid composite
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Igor Robert Blum1King's College Hospital & King's College London Dental Institute, Division of Primary Dental Care and Maurice Wohl Dental Centre, Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of London, Bessemer Road, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS UK.
Mutlu Özcan2Division of Dental Materials, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
King's College Hospital · GBUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewDefective dental restorations are amongst the most common encounters in general dental practice. Replacement of defective restorations is often costly and commonly results in the sacrifice of sound tooth structure, thereby compromising the vitality of the dental pulp, potentially resulting in the acceleration of the restoration cycle and premature loss of the restored tooth. With advances in adhesive dentistry, 'reparative dentistry' is becoming an important area of minimally invasive dentistry. This article highlights the detrimental biological effects of restoration replacement and provides an overview of current knowledge and understanding of restoration repair as a safe and effective alternative approach to replacement. RECENT

findingsThe literature reviewed showed that a growing body of evidence from clinical studies indicates that repaired restorations have similar survival outcomes in patients with low and medium caries risk compared to replaced restorations and are clinically acceptable over a 12-year follow-up of clinical service. Teeth with repaired restorations are less likely to require aggressive interventions such as endodontic treatment or extraction compared to those with replaced restorations. SUMMARY: Repair options should be carried out wherever possible as minimally interventional procedures in order to increase the longevity of the remaining part of the restoration and the restored tooth unit. Restoration replacement should be considered as the last resort when there are no other viable alternatives.

Indexed as

AdhesionMinimally invasive dentistryRepairRestorative dentistry

Identifiers

PMID30524930
PMCPMC6244566
OpenAlexW2889927893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.