| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Schwendicke, Falk
LMU Klinikum
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (10/10 displayed)
- 2022RoBDEMAT: A risk of bias tool and guideline to support reporting of pre-clinical dental materials research and assessment of systematic reviews.citations
- 2022RoBDEMAT: A risk of bias tool and guideline to support reporting of pre-clinical dental materials research and assessment of systematic reviewscitations
- 2021Glass Hybrid Versus Nanocomposite for Restoration of Sclerotic Non-carious Cervical Lesions: 18-Month Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.citations
- 2020Improving the Bond Strength of Radiographically Tagged Caries Lesions In Vitro.citations
- 2018Clinical studies in restorative dentistry: Design, conduct, analysis.citations
- 2017Cost-effectiveness of Different Post-retained Restorations.citations
- 2016Design and Validity of Randomized Controlled Dental Restorative Trials.citations
- 2016Dental filling materials for managing carious lesions in the primary dentitioncitations
- 2015Managing caries: the need to close the gap between the evidence base and current practice.citations
- 2014Comparison of four methods to assess erosive substance loss of dentin.citations
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
Design and Validity of Randomized Controlled Dental Restorative Trials.
Abstract
Background: The evidence stemming from trials on restorative materials is shaped not only by trial findings, but also trial design and validity. We aimed to evaluate both aspects in randomized controlled dental restorative trials published from 2005-2015. Methods: Using systematic review methodology, we retrieved trials comparing restorative or adhesive dental materials. Two authors independently assessed design, risk of bias, registration status, and findings of trials. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed. Results: 114 studies on 15,321 restorations placed mainly in permanent teeth of 5232 patients were included. Per trial, the median number of patients was 37 (25th/75th percentiles: 30/51). Follow-up was 24 (20/48) months. Seventeen percent of trials reported on sample size calculations, 2% had been registered. Most trials (90%) used US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria, and had a high risk of bias. More recent trials were more likely to have been registered, to have reported on sample size calculations, to be of low risk of bias, and to use other than USPHS-criteria. Twenty-three percent of trials yielded significant differences between groups. The likelihood of such differences was significantly increased in older studies, studies with potential reporting bias, published in journals with high impact factor (>2), longer follow-up periods, and not using USPHS-criteria. Conclusions: The majority of dental restorative trials published from 2005-2015 had limited validity. Risk of bias decreased in more recent trials. Future trials should aim for high validity, be registered, and use defined and appropriate sample sizes, follow-up periods, and outcome measures.