Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Apr 21.
Published in final edited form as: J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jun 12;123(1):71–78. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.12.005

Table 2.

Analysis of crack-level characteristics according to treatment versus monitor recommendation at baseline

Crack-level characteristics Monitor (N=1818) Restore (N=1018)
N1 Col%2 N Row%3
At least 1 crack stained 1464 81 843 37%
No cracks were stained 354 19 175 33%
cluster adjusted OR4 OR=1.3
cluster adjusted P5 P=.006
At least 1 crack detectable with an explorer 1192 66 773 39%
No cracks detectable with an explorer 626 34 245 28%
cluster adjusted OR OR=1.8
cluster adjusted P P<.001
At least 1 crack blocked transilluminated light 1126 62 726 39%
No cracks blocked transilluminated light 692 38 292 30%
cluster adjusted OR OR=1.6
cluster adjusted P P<.001
At least 1 crack connected with a restoration 1285 71 794 38%
No cracks connected with a restoration 533 29 224 30%
cluster adjusted OR OR=1.4
cluster adjusted P P<.001
At least 1 crack connected with another crack 106 6 97 48%
No cracks connected with another crack 1712 94 921 35%
cluster adjusted OR OR=1.5
cluster adjusted P P=.023
At least 1 crack extended to root 308 17 219 42%
No cracks extended to root 1510 83 799 35%
cluster adjusted OR OR=1.0
cluster adjusted P P=.771
1

Column Ns not summing to column total N above due to missing data

2

Column percentages not summing to 100 due to rounding.

3

Percentage recommended for restoration within level of crack-level characteristic: (# with recommend restore/(# recommend restore + # recommend monitor)

4

OR: Odds ratio adjusted only for clustering of patients within practitioner using generalized estimating equations.

5

Significance of differences in proportions recommended to restore adjusted only for clustering of patients within practitioner using generalized estimating equations.