ArticleFrontiers in oral health2024
Evaluation of caries risk assessment practices among dental practitioners in Guangzhou, China: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behavioral Changes and Determinants of Preventive Oral-Health Practices Among Chinese Dental Patients: A Hospital-Based Cross-Sectional Study in Guangzhou.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Integrated Dentist-Nurse Collaborative Care Model for Caries Management in China.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Bridging the Gap Between Knowledge and Practice: Contemporary Preventive Strategies in Modern Dental Care-A Cross-Sectional Survey of Practicing Dentists.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Adoption of minimally invasive dentistry in Palestine: assessing practices and barriers - a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Emerging patterns in nanoparticle-based therapeutic approaches for rheumatoid arthritis: A comprehensive bibliometric and visual analysis spanning two decades.Open life sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate dental practitioners' knowledge and practices regarding Caries risk assessment (CRA) in routine clinical practice in Guangzhou, China. Methods: An online questionnaire was disseminated to dental practitioners to gather socio-demographic information, factors associated with CRA, the implementation of preventive treatment, and the level of awareness regarding personalized preventive treatment in relation to CRA. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, ANOVA, MANCOVA, linear regression, and scatter plots. Results and discussion: Out of the 695 dental practitioners who were contacted, 206 dentists participated in the online survey. However, out of the total number of dentists, 198 were successfully recruited, while the remaining 8 dentists had incomplete data in their questionnaires. 92.4% of dentists provided in-office fluoride treatments, and 73.2% held a strong belief in the correlation between current oral hygiene and tooth cavities. 23.7% of dentists evaluated caries risk on an individual basis, and a significant 41.9% never utilized a particular type of CRA. 53.5% of dentists recommended non-prescription fluoride rinses, whereas 51% advocated prescription fluoride treatments. Significant statistical relationships were found between the use of in-office fluoride and the effectiveness of restorative treatment (
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.