A consensus-based approach to evidence-based clinical practice

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2017.08.184

Dental Materials

Volume 33, Issue 10, October 2017, Pages 1067-1068

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.08.184 Get rights and content

References (18)

A.M. da Veiga et al.
Longevity of direct and indirect composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth
a systematic review and meta-analysis J Dent
(2016)
F.F. Demarco et al.
Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials
Dent Mater
(2012)
D.C. Watts
Let there be more light
Dent Mater
(2015)
D. Layton
A critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: are systematic reviews really systematic?
Int J Prosthodont
(2017)
J.F. Roulet et al.
Evidence based—eine Medallie mit 2 Seiten
Prophyl Impuls
(2015)
M. Hayashi et al.
Ceramic inlays for restoring posterior teeth
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
(2003)
C.W. Pol et al.
A systematic review of ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: an update
Int J Prosthodont
(2011)
E. Karaman et al.
Effect of operator variability on microleakage with different adhesive systems
Eur J Dent
(2013)
M. Larske et al.
Longevity of direct restorations in Dutch dental practices. Descriptive study out of practice based research network
J Dent
(2016)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (3)

Reporting of light irradiation conditions in 300 laboratory studies of resin-composites
2019, Dental Materials
Citation Excerpt :
They considered that such radiant exposure far exceeded the MER values recommended by the manufacturers, and so did not reflect “clinical reality”. Since long-term (5 + years) randomized clinical trials are often unfeasible before a product is released on the market [8,9], well-designed laboratory studies are an essential means to evaluate photocured resin materials. We can divide these laboratory studies into two main categories that we will call Type I and Type II.
To evaluate how the light delivered to resin-composites was described in recent articles.
PubMed was searched for 300 articles published between January 2017 and May 2018 with keywords relating to photocuring of dental materials. The articles examined a wide range of resin-composite properties and performance. For each article, the information provided about the light curing unit (LCU), the light curing conditions and the characteristics and quantity of the light used in the study were recorded. Specifically, the type of LCU used; the irradiance; how the irradiance was measured; the exposure times; whether the light energy (radiant exposure) received by the specimen was determined, or if only the light output at the LCU tip was measured; whether the distance between the tip of the LCU and the specimen was reported; and whether the emission spectrum from the LCU was reported. Where possible, the resin manufacturer’s minimum energy requirement (MER: the product of the recommended minimum exposure time and irradiance) was compared to the radiant exposure delivered to the specimen.
Of the 300 articles examined, 217 were published in 2017 and 83 in 2018. Of these articles, 130 (43%) were found in open access journals, and 170 (57%) were in subscription-based journals. The name of the LCU used was not provided in 31 articles, 14 articles did not provide the exposure time, and 227 articles did not report the distance to the specimen.
An irradiance value was reported in 231 articles, but this was the irradiance received by the specimen in only 48 instances. The emission spectrum from the LCU was reported in 15 articles. There was a large range in the radiant exposures from below 10 J/cm² to greater than 100 J/cm².
The majority of articles from 2017 and early 2018 did not include sufficient description of the characteristics and quantity of the light received by the resin-composite specimens to allow the study to be replicated. It is recommended that future articles should report: (1) the identity of the LCU used; (2) the radiant exposure received by the specimen (J/cm²); and (3) appropriate reference to the emission spectrum from the LCU.
How evidence-based is dentistry anyway? From evidence-based dentistry to evidence-based practice
2020, British Dental Journal
Enhancing the Value of Dental Biomaterials Research: “Reducing the Noise”
2018, Journal of Dental Research

^☆: This editorial first appeared in Stoma Edu J. 2017;4(2):82–83.

View full text

EditorialA consensus-based approach to evidence-based clinical practice☆

a systematic review and meta-analysis J Dent

Dent Mater

Dent Mater

A critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: are systematic reviews really systematic?

Int J Prosthodont

Evidence based—eine Medallie mit 2 Seiten

Prophyl Impuls

Ceramic inlays for restoring posterior teeth

Cochrane Database Syst Rev

A systematic review of ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: an update

Int J Prosthodont

Effect of operator variability on microleakage with different adhesive systems

Eur J Dent

Longevity of direct restorations in Dutch dental practices. Descriptive study out of practice based research network

J Dent

Editorial
A consensus-based approach to evidence-based clinical practice☆