ArticleThe Journal of prosthetic dentistry2020
Recommended treatment of cracked teeth: Results from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.
Article in The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occlusal veneer restoration treatment outcomes of cracked tooth syndrome: A 22.4-month follow-up study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Analysis of acupoint massage combined with touch on relieving anxiety and pain in patients with oral implant surgery.World journal of psychiatry · 2024Article
- Characteristics of dentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.Journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Lessons learned from the Cracked Tooth Registry: A 3-year clinical study in the Nation's Network.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2023Review
- Effects on different full-coverage designs and materials of crack propagation in first mandibular molar: an extended finite element method study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Was the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Associated with an Increased Rate of Cracked Teeth?Journal of endodontics · 2022Article
- Treatment of cracked teeth: A comprehensive narrative review.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Review
- Precision medicine using patient-specific modelling: state of the art and perspectives in dental practice.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Review
- Onset and resolution of pain among treated and untreated posterior teeth with a visible crack: Three-year findings from the national dental practice-based research network.Journal of dentistry · 2022Article
- 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
- Effect of Root Canal Therapy Combined with Full Crown Restoration on the Level of Inflammatory Factors and Chewing Function in Patients with Cracked Teeth and Chronic Pulpitis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 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
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
statement of problemDespite the high prevalence of posterior cracked teeth, questions remain regarding the best course of action for managing these teeth. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to identify and quantify the characteristics of visible cracks in posterior teeth and their association with treatment recommendations among patients in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. MATERIAL AND
methodsNetwork dentists enrolled patients with a single, vital posterior tooth with at least 1 observable external crack. Data were collected at the patient, tooth, and crack levels, including the presence and type of pain and treatment recommendations for subject teeth. Frequencies according to treatment recommendation were obtained, and odds ratios (ORs) comparing recommendations for the tooth to be restored versus monitored were calculated. Stepwise regressions were performed using generalized models to adjust for clustering; characteristics with P<.05 were retained.
resultsA total of 209 dentists enrolled 2858 patients with a posterior tooth with at least 1 crack. Mean ±standard deviation patient age was 54 ±12 years; 1813 (63%) were female, 2394 (85%) were non-Hispanic white, 2213 (77%) had some dental insurance, and 2432 (86%) had some college education. Overall, 1297 (46%) teeth caused 1 or more of the following types of pain: 1055 sensitivity to cold, 459 biting, and 367 spontaneous. A total of 1040 teeth were recommended for 1 or more treatments: restoration (n=1018; 98%), endodontics (n=29; 3%), endodontic treatment and restoration (n=20; 2%), extraction (n=2; 0.2%), and noninvasive treatment, for example, occlusal device, desensitizing (n=11; 1%). The presence of caries (OR=67.3), biting pain (OR=7.3), and evidence of a crack on radiographs (OR=5.0) were associated with over 5-fold odds of recommending restoration. Spontaneous pain was associated with nearly 3-fold odds; pain to cold, having dental insurance, a crack that was detectable with an explorer or blocked transilluminated light, or connected with a restoration were each weakly associated with increased odds of recommending a restoration (OR<2.0).
conclusionsApproximately one-third of cracked teeth were recommended for restoration. The presence of caries, biting pain, and evidence of a crack on a radiograph were strong predictors of recommending a restoration, although the evidence of a crack on a radiograph only accounted for a 3% absolute difference (4% recommended treatment versus 1% recommended monitoring).
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.