Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35562468›Full record

ReviewBritish dental journal2022

Ceramics overview.

Russell Giordano Ii

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in British dental journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Russell Giordano IiAssistant Dean and Director of Biomaterials, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. rgiord@bu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ceramic materials have rapidly become the material of choice for indirect restorations. There are a variety of material types available for use such as feldspathic ceramics, glass ceramics and many types of zirconia. Advances in digital dentistry led to a rapid switch from porcelain fused to metal restorations to all-ceramic restorations. Variations in composition, microstructure and processing affect mechanical properties and use of these materials. Having a better understanding of their differences is important for proper clinical selection. Ceramic materials may be classified several ways including by composition, microstructure, processing technique and clinical application. This article reviews the various types of ceramics based on structure and properties that relate to clinical selection. After reading this article, the reader should be able to: explain the types of ceramics in use in dentistry; understand clinical selection based on properties; and discuss the differences in zirconia-based ceramics.

Indexed as

CeramicsDental PorcelainSurface PropertiesDental Porcelain

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.