ArticleDentistry journal2021
A Contemporary Evaluation on Posterior Direct Restoration Teaching among Undergraduates in Dental Schools in Malaysia.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Results from a five-year clinical assessment of undergraduate-performed direct composite restorations.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
There is a current trend to restore posterior teeth with composite resin due to increasing demands on natural tooth colour restoration and increased concern about the safety of amalgam restorations. The objective was to evaluate the current teaching of posterior direct restoration among restorative dental lecturers in Malaysia compared to available international literature. An online questionnaire, which sought information on the teaching of posterior restoration was developed and distributed to 13 dental schools in Malaysia. The response rate for the questionnaire was 53.8%. The most popular posterior restoration teaching methods among the respondents were lecture (95.7%), demonstration (87.0%) and problem-based learning (PBL) (73.9%), while continuous assessment and a practical competency test (82.6%) were the most popular assessment methods. Placing a hard setting calcium hydroxide and GIC base for deep cavity restored by composite restoration was taught in 79.2% of cases. The standard protocols for posterior composite restoration were incremental filling in deep cavity (87.5%), using circumferential metal bands with wooden wedge (91.7%), with a total etch system (95.8%), using a light emitting diode (LED) light curing unit (91.7%), finishing using water cooling (80%) and finishing with a disc (87.5%). Graduates from dental schools in Malaysia received similar theoretical, preclinical and clinical teaching on posterior restoration techniques, although there were variations in the delivery methods, techniques and assessments, pointing to a need for uniformity and consensus.
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.