ArticleCureus2023
Proposal of a Decision-Making Model for the Provisional Restoration Alternatives in Single-Tooth Implant Treatment.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The decision-making of the most appropriate provisional restoration option in single-tooth implant practice is complex under multi-criteria conditions. The aim of our study is to conduct a case study on the determination of the appropriate provisional treatment option to be used in a single-tooth dental implant interim period after placement with the help of an entropy-based additive ratio assessment. Methodology Eight important criteria for fulfilling this purpose have been extracted from the literature search: "esthetic potential," "patient comfort," "treatment time," "laboratory cost," "occlusal clearance," "ease of removal," "durability," and "ease of modification." Provisional treatment alternatives are "removable partial denture," "vacuum-formed appliances," "bonded extracted tooth or denture," "metal or fiber-reinforced resin-bonded fixed partial denture," "wire-retained resin-bonded fixed partial denture," "acrylic resin provisional fixed partial denture," and "implant-supported fixed provisional restoration." It has been examined which of these alternatives is most appropriate in terms of both reported specifications and artificially generated dominance scenarios. The scenarios employed are S0 (criteria are equal-weighted), S1 (the criterion is tri-fold dominant), and S2 (the criterion is two-fold dominant). Results "Patient comfort" was the most important criterion (wj = 0.19). The remaining criteria were ranked as "modifications," "treatment time," "durability," "esthetic potential," "laboratory cost," "occlusal clearance," and "ease of removal." The "implant-supported fixed provisional restoration" treatment option had the maximum degree of utility in the S0 (Ki = 0.782) and S2 (Ki = 0.80) categories. If "treatment time" or "occlusal clearance" is the dominant variable, "vacuum-formed appliances" had the highest degree of utility (Ki = 0.69) in S1. Conclusions According to the rankings and scenarios created utilizing entropy-based additive ratio assessment methods, the "implant-supported fixed provisional restoration" is the appropriate provisional option for a single-tooth implant treatment. If "treatment time" or "occlusal clearance" is an absolute criterion, the "vacuum-formed provisional appliance" will replace the appropriate option.
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.