Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32556660›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2021

Material selection for tooth-supported single crowns-a survey among dentists in Germany.

Angelika Rauch, Annett Schrock, Oliver Schierz, Sebastian Hahnel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Factors Influencing Dentists' Choice of Restorative Materials for Single-Tooth Crowns: A Survey Among Saudi Practitioners.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. The possibility of clinical bonding between metal/ceramic brackets to zirconia:Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors.

Angelika RauchDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Science, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 10, Haus 1, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. angelika.rauch@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3881-0549
Annett SchrockDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Science, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 10, Haus 1, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Oliver SchierzDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Science, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 10, Haus 1, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Sebastian HahnelDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry and Dental Materials Science, University of Leipzig, Liebigstr. 10, Haus 1, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

DGPro Versorgungskompass Festsitzender Zahngetragener Zahnersatz
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to survey dentists in Germany to identify their favored materials for the fabrication of tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) depending on the location of the abutment teeth and the preparation margin. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe survey included questions regarding demographic characteristics of dentists/their dental practice and preferred restorative materials for the fabrication of SCs for abutment teeth 16, 11, 34, and 36 with either supra- or subgingival preparation margins.

resultsBetween August 2019 and February 2020, 721 dentists participated in the survey; responses from 33 dentists were excluded from data analysis because the dentists did not work in Germany or provided less than one fixed dental prosthesis/month. Dentists favored ceramic materials independent of the location of the abutment tooth and preparation margin (56.6-92.2%). CAD/CAM resin composites or full metals were preferred by only a few participants. A significantly higher proportion of dentists recommended porcelain fused to metal for subgingival preparation margins than for supragingival margins (p < 0.001). Characteristics of dentists/dental practices influenced a single scenario (11 subgingival) that was dependent on the dentist's time since graduation. When asked to specify the ceramic materials, numerous participants wrote a free response (5.7-7.8%) or did not answer (0.7-4.8%).

conclusionsDentists in Germany selected restorative materials for SCs depending on the clinical scenario. Since numerous dentists did not specify the ceramic materials, postgraduate information and education might help to extend expertise. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this survey provide insight into the favored materials of dentists for the fabrication of tooth-supported SCs.

Indexed as

CrownsDental PorcelainDental Prosthesis DesignDentistsGermanyHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesDental PorcelainCeramicComposite resinsDental alloysDental materialDental restoration (permanent)Survey

Identifiers

PMID32556660
PMCPMC7785551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.