ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2020
Evaluation of Matrix Band Systems for Posterior Proximal Restorations among Egyptian Dentists: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2023Trial
- Influence of Matrix Type on Marginal Gap Formation of Deep Class II Bulk-Fill Composite Restorations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the techniques of matricing used by Egyptian dentists, and evaluate the influence of these techniques on the reproduction of optimum proximal contacts for posterior proximal resin composite restorations. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn online questionnaire was developed and sent to 785 dentists via e-mail and social media platforms. The survey asked the participants about the following: the highest academic degree achieved and their experience, techniques of matricing used, brands of matricing systems used, assessment of proximal contact points, their evaluation of the contact points they reproduced, and their assessment of the restorations' emergence profiles.
resultsA total of 415 dentists participated in the study (response rate 52.8%). 308, (74%), dentists preferred using the sectional matrix system, while 107 dentists, (26%), preferred using the circumferential matrix system. One hundred twenty-six dentists, (31%), reported that the circumferential matrix systems reproduced optimum contacts, 105 dentists, (25%), reported tight contacts and 184 dentists, (44%), reported open contacts. However, for the sectional matrix systems, the optimum contacts were reported by 279 dentists, (67%), tight contacts by 109 dentists, (26%), and open contacts by 27 dentists, (7%). There was a statistically significant difference between the sectional matrix systems and the circumferential matrix systems regarding the tightness of the proximal contact points (P<0.0001).
conclusionsEgyptian dentists preferred using the sectional matrix systems. The survey indicated that optimum contact points were highly associated with the sectional matrix systems, while poor (open and tight) contacts were highly associated with the circumferential matrix systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.