Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
The International Journal of Prosthodontics
IJP Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: IJP
The International Journal of Prosthodontics

Edited by George A. Zarb, BChD, DDS, MS, MS, FRCD(C)

ISSN 0893-2174

Publication:
March/April 2003
Volume 16 , Issue 2

Back
Share Abstract:

Systematic Review of 10 Years of Systematic Reviews in Prosthodontics

Nico H. J. Creugers, DDS, PhD, Cees M. Kreulen, DDS, PhD

Pages: 123–127
PMID: 12737241

Purpose: The objective was to make an inventory of systematic reviews in the field of prosthodontics and to assess the strength of evidence yielded by these studies. Materials and Methods: The literature was searched using MEDLINE (keywords “dental” in subset combined with “meta-analysis” in publication type, and “dental” in subset combined with “systematic review”). Reviews related to prosthodontics were selected by hand. Analogies between the reviewing processes were assessed, and the quality was described. Results: There were 138 articles qualifying as either systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Of these, 13 reported pooled data on prosthodontic subjects. Two pairs of reviews were identified as dealing with comparable items; the others described all different subjects. In one pair, the studies reviewed the survival of conventional fixed partial dentures (FPD); the other pair was on single-tooth implants. The pooled results within each pair were almost equal. For the FPD reviews, 65% of the unity of studies was included in both reviews. For the single-tooth implants, 29% of the potentially useful studies were included in both reviews. The data pooling processes showed the same pattern. One large study included in both reviews explained a large part of the similarity of the combined survivals of FPDs. For the single-tooth implant reviews, the largest common study explained 20% of the similarity. Conclusion: Although there were methodologic differences between the paired reviews, they produced similar results. The outcomes of the evaluated reviews may be used as prognostic data; however, they cannot be used for direct comparison of treatments. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:123–127.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog