ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry : JCD
A 1-year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of conventional direct composite restoration technique with a novel "custom shield" technique in class I compound lesions - A randomized clinical study.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of configuration factor on bond strength of universal adhesives in occlusal cavities: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Clinical performance and wear resistance of milled resin composite material versus direct nanohybrid bulk-fill resin composite in the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth over 1 year: Randomized clinical trial.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of the study is to evaluate and compare the 1-year clinical performance of conventional direct composite restoration technique with a novel "custom shield" technique in class I compound lesions. Subjects and Methods: After ethical approval, 72 patients who signed the informed consent form participated in the study. They were divided into two groups - Group A: Conventional direct composite restoration ( Statistical Analysis: Chi-square test and Friedman test using SPSS version 21.0. Results: A statistically significant difference was obtained for marginal adaptation ( Conclusion: Conventional composite restoration and custom shield technique can be successfully used in class I compound lesions with custom shield technique having a higher edge over the conventional technique.
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.