Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30734749›Full record

ArticleBritish dental journal2019

Dental practice in the UK in 2015/2016. Part 3: aspects of indirect restorations and fixed prosthodontics.

A A Jum'ah, S Creanor, N H F Wilson, F J T Burke, P A Brunton

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British dental journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  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

5 authors.

A A Jum'ahJordan University of Science & Technology, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Irbid, Jordan.
S CreanorMedical Statistics, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine & Dentistry, Plymouth, UK.
N H F WilsonKing's College London Dental Institute, London, UK.
F J T BurkePrimary Dental Care Research Group, University of Birmingham School of Dentistry, Birmingham, UK.
P A BruntonUniversity of Otago, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, Dunedin New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This paper reports data which helps identify changes and trends in the provision of indirect fixed prostheses in general dental practice in the UK. To determine by means of an anonymous, self-report questionnaire, the current trend in the provision of fixed prosthodontic treatments, with a special emphasis on the choice of treatment modalities, techniques and materials. Methods: The data presented were extracted from the data obtained from a validated,121-question questionnaire distributed at random to general dental practitioners in the UK attending postgraduate meetings in 2015/2016, with a wide distribution of locations. Results: A response rate exceeding 66% was achieved. Amalgam and light-cured composite were the preferred material for core build-up of vital teeth for around 62% of the respondents. Dentine pins were still being used by 66% of the respondents. The vast majority of respondents (92%) used a post and core to restore root-treated teeth. Fibre posts were the most commonly used (63%) type of preformed post among the respondents. Using the opposing and adjacent teeth as a reference to control tooth structure reduction during vital tooth preparation was the most common method, used by 42% of the respondents. Addition-cured silicone impression materials were the most frequently used impression material (78%). The surveyed practitioners were equally split between precious and non-precious metals as the substructure for indirect restorations. Glass-ionomer luting cements (47%) and resin-based cements (52%) were the most commonly used to cement porcelain fused to metal and zirconia indirect restorations, respectively. Laboratory made aesthetic veneers were prescribed by half of the respondents, while a third of them preferred direct resin composite as a veneer material. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, it was concluded that there has been an increase in the use of adhesive bonding and metal-free restorations. Amalgam and dentine pinscontinued to be used, contrary to international trends. Studies of the type reported are considered important in investigating trends and developments in dentistry.

Indexed as

Composite ResinsEsthetics, DentalDental MaterialsGlass Ionomer CementsProsthodonticsUnited KingdomComposite ResinsDental MaterialsGlass Ionomer Cements

Identifiers

PMID30734749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.