ArticleBrazilian dental journal
The absence of proximal contact point on periodontal parameters of teeth moved into extraction sites.
Article in Brazilian dental journal. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing proximal contact assessment: a reproducible, clinically applicable chairside classification system- a cross-sectional observational study.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of study was to evaluate periodontal conditions of upper canines and second premolars with and without proximal contact of individuals undergoing orthodontic treatment associated to extractions of the upper first premolars. The study selected upper canines and premolars of individuals undergoing orthodontic treatment without extractions (30 hemiarches - control group), or with extraction of the upper first premolars and whose canines and second premolars had interproximal contact (16 hemiarches - group 1) or diastema (17 hemiarches - group 2). Clinical (plaque index, probing depth, gingival bleeding index, height of the gingival margin, clinical attachment loss and gingival clefts) and radiographic (crest height, bone height and bone-crest discrepancy) parameters of the distal surfaces of canines and mesial surfaces of premolars were evaluated. Group 1 had worse results when compared to the control group for the levels of plaque in canines and premolars and for probing depth in canines (distal and mean) and in premolars (lingual and mean), as well as increasing tendency of clinical attachment loss (lingual and mean) in premolars. Plaque level in canines in group 1 was also significantly higher than in group 2. There was no difference between group 2 and the control group. The lack of proximal contact between canines and second premolars did not significantly affect their periodontal characteristics.
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.