ArticleFrontiers in oral health2026
One-year survival of minimally invasive restorations in patients with disabilities: implications for clinical decision-making in special care dentistry.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2026. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unmet caries treatment needs are common among people with disabilities, in part due to difficulties with cooperation during conventional dental care. This cohort study aimed to compare the acceptability, feasibility, and survival of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART), Silver-modified Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (SMART), and Conventional Restorative Treatment (CRT) in patients with disabilities referred to a university dental clinic. Methods: Seventy-four patients (mean age 20.6 ± 11.2 years) referred for restorative care chose: ART ( Results: ART, SMART, and CRT were feasible for all patients selecting those options, with optimal restoration placement in 100% of ART and CRT cases, and 95.8% in SMART. Complexity scores (BDA) were significantly higher in the SMART group (OR = 3.730; 95% CI: 1.82-6.75; Conclusions: ART and SMART are acceptable and feasible restorative approaches for patients with disabilities, particularly when adaptations across care domains are required. Patients with lower BDA scores are more likely to opt for CRT. However, the significantly lower survival associated with SMART challenges its suitability as a durable option in this population.
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.