Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37465158›Full record

ReviewPeerJ2023

Current classification of zirconia in dentistry: an updated review.

Suchada Kongkiatkamon, Dinesh Rokaya, Santiphab Kengtanyakich, Chaimongkon Peampring

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Suchada KongkiatkamonDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand.
Dinesh RokayaFaculty of Dentistry, Zarqa University, Zarqa, Jordan.
Santiphab KengtanyakichProsthodontic Section, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand.
Chaimongkon PeampringDepartment of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Zirconia, a crystalline oxide of zirconium, holds good mechanical, optical, and biological properties. The metal-free restorations, mostly consisting of all-ceramic/zirconia restorations, are becoming popular restorative materials in restorative and prosthetic dentistry choices for aesthetic and biological reasons. Dental zirconia has increased over the past years producing wide varieties of zirconia for prosthetic restorations in dentistry. At present, literature is lacking on the recent zirconia biomaterials in dentistry. Currently, no article has the latest information on the various zirconia biomaterials in dentistry. Hence, the aim of this article is to present an overview of recent dental zirconia biomaterials and tends to classify the recent zirconia biomaterials in dentistry. This article is useful for dentists, dental technicians, prosthodontists, academicians, and researchers in the field of dental zirconia.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsZirconiumCeramicsDentistryBiocompatible MaterialsZirconiumzirconium oxide3Y-TZP5Y-TZPCAD/CAMDental ceramicTranslucencyY-TZP

Identifiers

PMID37465158
PMCPMC10351515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.