ArticlePeerJ2020
Cavity treatment in primary molars and malocclusion: quasi-randomised clinical trial.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn innovative caries treatment protocol for primary teeth, termed Ultra-Conservative Treatment (UCT), restores small cavities through the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) protocol and cleans medium to large open cavities with toothbrush and fluoride toothpaste. However, UCT-treated primary molars were found to exfoliate earlier than amalgam (CRT) and ART-restored cavities, which may lead to unacceptable loss of space for normal eruption of permanent successors. The null-hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between the three treatment protocols and the intra-arch distances, and index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN) after 4 years.
methodsDental casts were taken at baseline (T0) and four (T4) years. The space of the premolars (D + E space), arch perimeter, anterior and total arch depth were measured using a morphometric computer programme. The presence and level of malocclusion were assessed according to the IOTN index. Dependent variables were all intra-arch distances and the IOTN while the independent variable was treatment protocol (CRT, ART and UCT). Data were analysed using linear and logistic regression.
resultsThe sample consisted of 867 pairs of casts of 272 initial 6-7-year-olds. No difference was observed between the UCT protocol and the two restorative protocols for the intra-arch variables in both maxilla and mandible over the 4 year period. There was no difference between the UCT and the CRT and ART protocols regarding the occurrence of orthodontic treatment need (malocclusion). In conclusion, the UCT treatment protocol does not differ significantly from the traditional amalgam (CRT) and ART restorative protocols with respect to intra-arch distances and malocclusion. The earlier exfoliation of UCT-treated primary molars does not lead to a worsening of the eruption pattern of permanent successors.
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.