Journal of prosthodontic research · 2008
Critical review of some dogmas in prosthodontics.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Carlsson Gunnar E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In prosthodontics like in other dental disciplines there are many clinical procedures that lack support of good evidence, which means that the effect is unknown, and even worse, we do not know if they do more good than harm. It is the aim of this paper to review current evidence for selected procedures based on a scrutiny of the prosthodontic literature.
STUDY SELECTION: A MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted for articles on the selected items with a focus on best available evidence.
RESULTS: Many "old truths" regarding prosthodontic interventions can be called dogmas, opinions based more on belief than scientific evidence. There is, for example, lack of evidence to support the opinion that a face-bow is necessary in the fabrication of prostheses, and many theories related to occlusion are not evidence-based. Some such dogmas in various areas of the discipline are exemplified and discussed in the article.
CONCLUSION: A scrutiny of the prosthodontic literature indicates that many common clinical procedures lack scientific support. In the era of evidence-based dentistry, ineffective interventions should be eliminated and decisions should be made on best available evidence.
STUDY SELECTION: A MEDLINE/PubMed search was conducted for articles on the selected items with a focus on best available evidence.
RESULTS: Many "old truths" regarding prosthodontic interventions can be called dogmas, opinions based more on belief than scientific evidence. There is, for example, lack of evidence to support the opinion that a face-bow is necessary in the fabrication of prostheses, and many theories related to occlusion are not evidence-based. Some such dogmas in various areas of the discipline are exemplified and discussed in the article.
CONCLUSION: A scrutiny of the prosthodontic literature indicates that many common clinical procedures lack scientific support. In the era of evidence-based dentistry, ineffective interventions should be eliminated and decisions should be made on best available evidence.