ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2020
Retrospective study of patients with amelogenesis imperfecta treated with different bonded restoration techniques.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally Invasive Transitional Full-Mouth Adhesive Rehabilitation of a Patient With Amelogenesis Imperfecta Using Direct and Indirect Composite Restorations: A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Full Mouth Rehabilitation with All-Ceramic Restorations in a Patient with Amelogenesis Imperfecta: A Case Report with 10-Year Follow-Up.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Roles of calcium in ameloblasts during tooth development: A scoping review.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Interdisciplinary full mouth rehabilitation of a patient with amelogenesis imperfecta from childhood to young adult-hood: A 12-year case report.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Tooth ultrastructure changes induced by a nonsense mutation in the FAM83H gene: insights into the diversity of amelogenesis imperfecta.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Surface profile characterization of prefabricated resin composite veneers following simulated abrasion. AnJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Article
- Public and dental professionals' use of social media to discuss amelogenesis imperfecta.International journal of paediatric dentistry · 2022Article
- PROMs in AI patients.British dental journal · 2022Article
- Macroabrasion and/or Partial Veneers: Techniques for the Removal of Localized White Spots.Case reports in dentistry · 2022Article
- Management of Amelogenesis Imperfecta in Childhood: Two Case Reports.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Restorative Treatment of Amelogenesis Imperfecta with Prefabricated Composite Veneers.Case reports in dentistry · 2021Article
- Retrospective study of patients with amelogenesis imperfecta treated with different bonded restoration techniques.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate clinical success and satisfaction of patients with amelogenesis imperfecta treated with three different types of bonded restorations at a university clinic. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred fifty-four restorations in 15 subjects with mean age of 17.3 years (SD 8.2) were evaluated after treatment with three different types of bonded restorations: all ceramic enamel-dentin bonded restorations, prefabricated composite veneers, and direct composite resin restorations. A modified version of the Californian Dental Association system for quality evaluation of dental care and a questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction were used for classification. The restorations were evaluated with respect to patient satisfaction, esthetics, technical, and biological complications.
resultsMean observation period for the restorations was 42.5 months (SD 35.6). All restorations were in place at the time of the examination. Surface and color calibration showed a success of 95% for the ceramic enamel-dentin bonded restorations, 44% for the direct composite resin restorations, and 0% for the prefabricated composite veneers. The same pattern was evident for anatomy and marginal integrity. The subjects reported a high degree of satisfaction with both the esthetics and function of their restorations.
conclusionThe results indicated that all ceramic restorations demonstrated the best results for patients with amelogenesis imperfecta.
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.