ArticleBMC oral health2024
Chinese dentists' restorative preferences and choices for endodontically treated teeth: a representative survey.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. 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
- The impact of restoration protocols on the fracture resistance of root canal treated anterior teeth: an in vitro study.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- Knowledge and Awareness of Dental Students and Practitioners About the Utilization of Endocrown.Dentistry journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal restoration protocol for endodontically treated teeth (ETT) remains a subject of debate. This survey aims to assess the current level of awareness, knowledge, and prevailing opinions among dental practitioners in China regarding the application of endocrown versus the post/core/crown ensemble for post-endodontic restoration strategies.
methodsA validated questionnaire, encompassing three sections, was distributed electronically to dentists practicing in China. The initial section collected demographic characteristics of the participants, while the subsequent sections assessed their knowledge and preferences regarding ETT restoration techniques in various clinical scenarios. Distribution of the survey was facilitated through the social media platform WeChat, with a total of 600 invitations sent out. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS Statistical Software, employing frequency and Chi-square tests to determine statistical significance at the P < 0.05 threshold.
resultsA total of 400 valid questionnaires were collected. The amount of remaining tooth structure was identified as the most influential factor in determining the restoration strategies, contributing to 26.1%. Over 72.8% of the surveyed dentists acknowledged the reinforcing effect of intraradicular posts on ETT. More than half of the participants reported the application of endocrowns within their post-endodontics management. The preference for endocrowns was pronounced in cases where more than 50% of the tooth's structure remained or when occlusal space limitations were present. The Chi-Square test revealed that the participants' knowledge regarding endocrown restoration was significantly influenced by their age, educational background, and experience (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe clinical decision-making process for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) by dental practitioners primarily relies on the amount of remaining tooth structure. Most surveyed dentists believe that the presence of a post can reinforce ETT. A majority of participants consider the Endocrown as a viable alternative restorative treatment for ETT.
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.