ArticleHeliyon2023
Terminology focused on design and retention methods used for anterior resin-bonded fixed partial dentures in English literature: A scoping review.
Article in Heliyon, 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, 1 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Novel terms describing several designs of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPDs) continue to appear. Indeed, a variety of terms are used in the English scientific literature The use of a standard terminology is important for a fair and efficient understanding. This study aimed to investigate if the terminology used to describe designs and retention methods for anterior RBFPDs is standard. Methods: An electronic search in the English literature was conducted in PubMed/Medline to identify all publications reporting RBFPDs in the anterior region until August 2022. This search was completed by hand searching. Terms indicating different designs of RBFPDs were listed and then classified. Percentages of their use were calculated to determine the commonly used terms. Analysis of the use of these terms was performed based on the standards determined by the latest edition of the Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms (GPT). The impacts of the MeSH Thesaurus and GPT on the nomenclature used for RBFPDs was assessed. Results: A total of 125 articles were eligible for this review. In the retained articles, 86 terms were found. Among them, thirty-nine terms were classified into three groups. Only six terms were defined in the latest edition of GPT (GPT-9). Several classified terms that are commonly used were not identified in the GPT-9. Conversely to the GPT-9 which impact was insignificant, the MeSH Thesaurus had an important impact on the nomenclature used for RBFPDs. Conclusion: The terminology used to describe designs and retention methods for anterior RBFPDs was non-standard. The GPT-9, constituting an important reference, defined a limited number of terms related to RBFPDs and had no significant impact on the standardization of the terminology used for RBFPDs. Efforts should therefore be continued to standardize the terminology. A specialized mini-glossary grouping and defining all the terms found in this study will helpful in clarifying the terminology used for the anterior RBFPDs
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.