Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31893566›Full record

ArticleJournal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists2020

Laboratory Technician Assessment of the Quality of Single-Unit Crown Preparations and Impressions as Predictors of the Clinical Acceptability of Crowns as Determined by the Treating Dentist: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Michael S McCracken, Mark S Litaker, Alexandra E S Thomson, Alan Slootsky, Gregg H Gilbert, National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Investigation on the quality analysis of 1 312 single crown digital models.Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Michael S McCrackenDepartment of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2692-9665
Mark S LitakerDepartment of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Alexandra E S ThomsonPrivate Practice of Dentistry, Washington, DC.
Alan SlootskyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Nova Southeastern University, College of Dental Medicine, Davie, FL.
Gregg H GilbertDepartment of Clinical and Community Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2017-625X
National Dental PBRN Collaborative Group

Funding

The National Dental PBRNU19DE022516 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI GILBERT, GREGG H · 2012 to 2018
$66.4M
The National Dental PBRN - Administrative CoreU19DE028717 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI GILBERT, GREGG H · 2019 to 2025
$23.5M
NIDCR NIH HHS U19 DE022516NIDCR NIH HHS U19 DE028717NIDCR NIH HHS U19-DE-22516NIDCR NIH HHS U19-DE-28717
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn-laboratory assessment by laboratory technicians may offer insight to increase clinical success of dental crowns, and research in this area is lacking. MATERIALS AND

methodsDentists in the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network enrolled patients in a study about single-unit crowns; laboratory technicians evaluated the quality of tooth preparations and impressions. The primary outcome for each crown was clinical acceptability (CAC), as judged by the treating dentist. A secondary outcome was "Goodness of Fit (GOF)," a composite score of several aspects of clinical fit, also judged by the study dentist. A mixed-effects logistic regression was used to analyze associations between laboratory technician ratings and the CAC and GOF.

resultsDentists (n = 205) evaluated 3731 crowns. Technicians ranked the marginal detail of impressions as good or excellent in 92% of cases; other aspects of the impression were ranked good or excellent 88% of the time. Regarding tooth preparation, about 90% of preparations were considered adequate (neither excessive nor inadequate reduction). Factors associated with higher CAC were more preparation taper, and use of optical imaging. Factors associated with better GOF were higher impression quality, greater occlusal reduction, more preparation taper, and optical imaging.

conclusionsOverall quality of preparations and impressions was very high, as evaluated by laboratory technicians. Several clinical parameters were associated with higher CAC and GOF. Clinicians who struggle with crown remakes might consider less conservative tooth preparation, as well as using digital impression technology.

Indexed as

Laboratory PersonnelToothCrownsDental Impression TechniqueDental Prosthesis DesignDentistsHumansCrownsDental LaboratoryImpressionsPractice-Based ResearchPreparations

Identifiers

PMID31893566
PMCPMC7147961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.