Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32984102›Full record

ReviewJournal of family medicine and primary care2020

Clinical guideline and treatment planning decisions of single-tooth implants versus preserving natural teeth with nonsurgical endodontic therapy.

Sourav Bhattacharyya, D P Das, Anirban Bhattacharyya, Asim Bikash Maity, Debanjan Das

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Sourav BhattacharyyaLecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Haldia Institute of Dental Science and Research, West Bengal, India.
D P DasProfessor & HOD, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Haldia Institute of Dental Science and Research, West Bengal, India.
Anirban BhattacharyyaProfessor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Haldia Institute of Dental Science and Research, West Bengal, India.
Asim Bikash MaityProfessor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Haldia Institute of Dental Science and Research, West Bengal, India.
Debanjan DasLecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Haldia Institute of Dental Science and Research, West Bengal, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The outcomes of both dental implants and endodontically treated teeth have been extensively studied. An assessment of whether to rehabilitate a tooth requiring endodontic treatment or to replace it with a dental implant can often involve a challenging and complex decision making process for clinicians now a days. This review describes practical criteria and a systematic process to aid the treatment planning decision of whether to preserve teeth by root canal treatment (RCT) or extract and provide an implant. This article reviews the benefits and disadvantages of both treatment options and discusses success vs. survival outcomes.

Indexed as

Decision makingdental implantsendodontic therapyoral healthoutcomesystematic reviewtreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID32984102
PMCPMC7491817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.