ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2023
Magnetic attachment improves the chewing ability of patients with dental defects after oral restoration.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2023. 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, 0 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effect and clinical value of magnetic attachments in oral restoration.
methodsSeventy-two cases of dental defects treated in Haishu District Stomatological Hospital from April 2018 to October 2019 were selected for retrospective analysis, of which 36 cases were treated with routine oral restoration (control group) and 34 cases with magnetic attachments (research group). The clinical efficacy, adverse reactions, masticatory efficiency and fixation force were compared between the two groups, and the treatment satisfaction was investigated at discharge. Subsequently, a one-year follow-up survey was conducted on the patients. The probing depth (PD) and alveolar bone height were re-examined at 6-month intervals, and the sulcus bleeding index (SBI), tooth loosening and plaque index (PLI) were recorded.
resultsCompared with the control group, the total effective rate was higher in the research group, and the incidence of adverse reactions was lower (P<0.05). After the restoration treatment, the masticatory efficiency, fixation force, comfort and aesthetic outcome in the research group were higher than those in the control group (all P<0.05). The follow-up results showed that the SBI, PD, PLI and tooth loosening rate of the research group were lower while the alveolar bone height were higher, versus the control group (all P<0.05).
conclusionsMagnetic attachments can significantly improve the effect and safety of dental restoration as well as the masticatory efficiency, fixation, and periodontal rehabilitation of patients, which fully illustrates the clinical application value of magnetic attachments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37434843PMC10331655W4383998049What 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.