Is the Evidence Supporting Dental Procedures Strong? A Survey of Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Oral Health

Faggion, Clóvis Mariano

doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2012.05.003

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…); therefore, it was decided to include observational studies as well. However, adding observational studies to the systematic review may increase the risk of bias (Faggion ). The included observational study reported on post‐retained crowns (Signore et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A systematic review was conducted and reported adhering to the PRISMA statement , Moher et al 2009), the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines (Higgins & Green 2012) and the quality standards proposed by AMSTAR on therapies (Shea et al 2007(Shea et al , 2009. This was performed to minimize potential bias in the review process by promoting transparency (Faggion 2013), quality methodology (Faggion 2010) and better reporting (Faggion 2012).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is acknowledged in the literature that RCTs in prosthodontics are not common (Harwood 2008) and most of them are classified as low quality (Pandis et al 2010); therefore, it was decided to include observational studies as well. However, adding observational studies to the systematic review may increase the risk of bias (Faggion 2012). The included observational study reported on post-retained crowns (Signore et al 2011).…”

Section: Overall Completeness and Applicability Of The Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…There have been attempts through expert opinions and reviews to create guidelines for restorative treatment planning (Christensen 1996, Chadwick et al 1999, Aquilino & Caplan 2002, Manhart et al 2004, Schwartz & Robbins 2004, Esteves et al 2011, Meyenberg 2013, Mannocci & Cowie 2014, Trushkowsky 2014. However, these guidelines have not been generally adopted, and they may be subject to bias due to invalid methodology or poor reporting (Faggion 2010(Faggion , 2012(Faggion , 2013. The best way to facilitate restorative treatment planning of root filled teeth would be to determine the failure rate of all treatment options according to the potential risk factors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Failure of single‐unit restorations on root filled posterior teeth: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Afrashtehfar KI, Ahmadi M, Emami E, Abi-Nader S, Tamimi F. Failure of single-unit restorations on root filled posterior teeth: a systematic review. International Endodontic Journal, 50, 951-966, 2017. This systematic review investigated the failure rate of conventional single-unit restorations in root filled posterior permanent teeth. Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence of each included study according to the Cochrane Collaboration's procedures for randomized control trials (RCTs) and the STROBE criteria for observational studies. The MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register and CENTRAL (via Cochrane Library) databases were searched electronically (January 1993 to week 1, February 2015). This was complemented by an additional hand search of selected journals and the references of relevant studies. Clinical studies published on root filled single-unit restorative treatments with a mean follow-up period of at least 3 years were selected. The outcome measured was clinical or radiological failure. Overall, the four RCTs and the single observational study included were of low and high quality, respectively. Therefore, a meta-analysis was not possible. The pooled mean failure rates were reported according to the type of treatment and remaining coronal tooth structure. The current evidence suggested that the failure rates of the treatments may depend on the amount of remaining tooth structure and type of treatment. Postretained crowns were associated with the most favourable outcome in teeth with one to two remaining coronal tooth wall(s), whereas post-free crowns were superior when greater tooth structure was available. Restorations in teeth without ferrules had such a high rate of failure that other treatment options should be considered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overall Completeness and Applicability Of The Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Failure of single‐unit restorations on root filled posterior teeth: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recommendations for restorative techniques according to patient-related conditions are made, regardless of sound evidence to support the clinical decision. 98 Interestingly, the methods used to estimate the risk, meaning the criteria applied for patient inclusion/exclusion, are frequently missing, and the description for patient exclusion is often limited to ''poor oral hygiene'' or ''patients with bruxism were excluded.'' While in retrospective evaluations, investigators may be limited to work with information available in the clinical records, in prospective studies, the characterization of the sample population (by means of indexes, self-reported information, and cutoff points) should be far more complete and available for the reader, even if data will be presented only descriptively.…”

Section: Final Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoration Survival: Revisiting Patients' Risk Factors Through a Systematic Literature Review

Sande

Collares

Corrêa

et al. 2016

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A literature review was conducted to investigate the influence of patient-related factors on restoration survival in posterior permanent teeth as well as to report the methods used to collect these factors. The selection of articles on longitudinal clinical studies investigating the survival of posterior restorations (except full crowns and temporary fillings) and including patient-related factors was performed by applying predefined criteria. The review was organized into two parts, the first describing how patient factors were assessed in the studies (n=45) and the second presenting the statistical significance (n=27) and size of the effect (n=11) of these factors on restoration survival. Patient-related factors mentioned in the studies included age; gender; caries risk; caries activity/severity; decayed, missing, filled teeth; number of restorations; oral hygiene; and bruxism, among others. Sixteen studies included the patient age or age range in the analysis, which was found to be significant in 47% of the studies. Regarding gender, four of 17 reports found a significant effect on survival, showing more failures for men in three studies. The caries risk profile or related variables were included in the analysis of 15 studies, and a significant effect on survival was reported for high-caries-risk individuals (or related variables) in 67% of these studies. Bruxism was also found to influence restoration survival in three of six studies where this variable was investigated. Some issues were found regarding the reporting of methods used to classify patients according to risk and were thoroughly discussed. In view of the information gathered in this review, the assessment of patient factors along with other variables should become part of clinical studies investigating restoration survival, since several of these factors were shown to influence the failure of restorations, regardless of the material type.

show abstract

Case Study in Dentistry

Faggion

Tonmukayakul

2016

Umbrella Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is the Evidence Supporting Dental Procedures Strong? A Survey of Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Oral Health

Cited by 10 publications

References 56 publications

Failure of single‐unit restorations on root filled posterior teeth: a systematic review

Failure of single‐unit restorations on root filled posterior teeth: a systematic review

Restoration Survival: Revisiting Patients' Risk Factors Through a Systematic Literature Review

Case Study in Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About