SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2024
The risk of bonded fragment loss in crown-fractured anterior teeth managed by fragment reattachment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vertical grooving: The newer paradigm of the postbonding reinforcement for fragment reattachment in uncomplicated crown fractures.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Prognosis of Fragment Reattachment in Anterior Crown Fractures: A Retrospective Study.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify the factors affecting the risk of bonded fragment loss in crown-fractured anterior teeth managed by fragment reattachment.
methodsThe study protocol followed the best practices of evidence-based medicine and was registered in PROSPERO. A comprehensive literature search was performed electronically in six databases (PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Web-of-Science, Lilacs, and Cochrane) on 18-09-2023. It was saved in EndNote-online and duplicates were removed. Selection of articles was performed in two stages, followed by data-extraction, risk of bias assessment, data-analysis, and meta-analysis. The quality of evidence for the outcomes was assessed by the GRADE-approach.
resultsThe study included six articles that had similar selection protocols with variations in duration from trauma to treatment and the observation period. Only one study employed pre-attachment fragment preparation and three performed post-attachment reinforcements. Overall loss of fragment was 20% (95%CI-13,30%). When the risk ratio for loss of restoration or fragment was compared, it was found to be 2.21 (95%CI-1.52,3.21) in uncomplicated crown fractures, 2.54 (95%CI-1.35,4.79) in complicated crown fractures. The risk of bias was found to be low in two and moderate in four studies. Grade of evidence for all the outcomes was very low.
conclusionFragment loss was lowest in uncomplicated crown fractures where reinforcement had been performed, and highest when bonding was done in complicated crown fractures without reinforcement. The risk of fragment loss was higher than the loss of composite restorations.
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.