ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Microbiological and SEM assessment of atraumatic restorative treatment in adult dentition.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the practicability of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) in adults in terms of marginal adaptation of restorations and microbiological changes in residual carious dentin. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe occlusal dentin caries of 25 permanent molar teeth were removed with hand instruments. The total counts of bacteria (TCB) and the facultative anaerobic bacteria (FAB), mutans streptococci (MS), and Lactobacillus spp. (LB) counts in the affected dentin were evaluated quantitatively. The weights of the samples were measured with an electronic balance (Shimadzu, Type AX200, Japan). The cavities were restored with glass ionomer cement (Ketac
resultsIn the sixth month, restoration loss and pulpitis were not observed. The mean weight of samples removed from the cavity floor was less than the baseline (0.014±0.009 and 0.023±0.013 g, respectively) (p<0.01), and the counts of total bacteria, FAB, MS, and LB significantly decreased compared to baseline (p<0.01). The frequency of marginal gaps was increased (p< 0.01).
conclusionsART showed that the counts of microorganisms decreased after 6 months although the marginal gap rates of restorations increased. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ART can be a reliable treatment approach in adults for 6 months due to the decrease in microorganism counts, although gaps exist.
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.