ArticleCaries research2025
Dentists' Treatment Decisions Concerning Restorations in Adult Patients in North Norway: A Cross-Sectional Tromsø 7 Study.
Article in Caries research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dentists' Knowledge and Clinical Preferences Regarding Evidence-Based Restorative Material Selection in Türkiye: Implications for Clinical Practice and Healthcare Policy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Practice-Level Variation in the Provision of Subsidised Dental Services to Adult Danes in 2019: A Register-Based Study.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of Deep Learning Model for Predicting Long-Term Prognosis in Patients with Symptomatic Intracranial Arterial Stenosis.International journal of general medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the degree whereby dentists differentiate between repair versus replacement for failed restorations. A random selection of adult patients from North Norway was chosen from the larger Tromsø 7 study.
methodsA randomized sample of 3,653 persons (11.5% of the total number of individuals invited to the Tromsø 7 study, 51.5% women, aged 40-93 years) were included. Based on FDI's clinical criteria for the evaluation of restorations - 2010, 17 calibrated dentists evaluated patients by clinical and radiographical pictures in a specially designed software developed for this purpose. The dental practitioners' opinions gave rise to the reported treatment decisions. Descriptive statistics and multivariable multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression models (STATA 17/SE) were performed.
resultsThe participants' DMFT values ranged from 0 (0.9%) to 24 (8.8%) (median DMFT 21.3, mean 20.0). A total of 90.062 teeth (24.7 teeth per patient) were assessed. Re-treatment suggestions were made for 3,006 restorations, i.e., an average of 3.3% re-treatments. Of these, 25.3% (n = 814) were suggested for repair and 74.7% (n = 2,192) for replacement. Dental treatment was suggested for 1,597 patients and varying from 1 to 14 suggestions per patient. Secondary caries (37.6%) and restoration fracture (15.2%) were found to be most frequently used indications for re-treatment, surface properties the least. No significant difference was found between assessing dentists based on sex or age. Clustering by dentist level was checked using intra-class correlation coefficients, demonstrating that 16% of the variance in suggestions for restoration re-treatment was explained at the dentist level. Thus, a wide range of treatment suggestions was noted among the dentists.
conclusionNeed for restoration revision seems low in North Norway. There is a tendency towards larger and more indirect restorations, and the diagnosis of secondary caries is still a matter of uncertainty.
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.