ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2021
Knowledge and Opinions of French Dental Students Toward Occlusal and Proximal Restorative Thresholds.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the practices, knowledge and opinions of French dental students (FDSs) in various domains of minimal intervention (MI) in cariology. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted in spring 2018 among all fifth-year French dental students (FDSs) from the 16 French dental schools. The present article focuses on restorative management. Statistical analyses (descriptive, chi-squared) were performed.
resultsThe response rate was 84.5%. Overall, 97.4% of respondents would have operatively intervened for proximal and 83% for occlusal carious lesions, respectively, while non-or micro-invasive intervention would have been possible. Interestingly, 15% would completely open the occlusal fissures. For both occlusal and proximal lesions requiring a restoration, composite resin was indicated by over 95% of the respondents. In a clinical case, 51.6% of FDSs who rightly diagnosed an enamel carious lesion would operatively intervene. When FDSs could not diagnose the type of carious lesions, a high proportion of invasive actions were also reported (40%). FDSs who read scientific articles were more likely to consider the high importance of not filling sound teeth unnecessarily (p = 0.033).
conclusionFDSs do not have sufficient awareness of MI guidelines regarding occlusal and proximal restorative thresholds. Efforts are required in dental schools to teach FDSs to postpone invasive/restorative strategies to later stages of carious progression. There is a need to strengthen prevention techniques and non-invasive options in the teaching of MI in cariology.
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.