Function. Consensus report of Working Group 3.
The method used by the working group was an iterative process based upon a structured review of the relevant literature by the four author groups. Review papers were circulated to the members of the group before the conference and formed the basis for subsequent discussions. Each paper was subject to detailed collective analysis and subsequently modified on the basis of the panel's discussions and referenced to additional relevant literature where appropriate. The group assessed the levels of evidence for the claims and statements made in the supporting documentation. It was recognized that it was often necessary to adopt a compromise between acceptance of the lowest level, resulting in the largest body of material, and the highest level, which in some cases, produced little evidence. While this approach does not represent endorsement of lower evidence levels per se, it was designed to provide conclusions of clinical utility within the existing knowledge base. The papers, following the scrutiny, were amended and approved by the expert group. The consensus report was prepared by the working group after detailed considerations of the five approved papers.
Jokstad
Asbjørn
A
Department of Prosthodontics, University of Toronto Faculty of Dentistry, Toronto, Canada.
Türp
Jens C
JC
D003245:Consensus Statements as Topic; D017266:Dental Prosthesis; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D013705:Temporomandibular Joint Disorders / Q000628:therapy*