ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2021
The outcome of direct composite restorations using the dental operating microscope.
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of dental loupes and operating microscopes on restorative performance of preclinical and clinical dental students: a pilot study.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Effect of magnification and press-on force on resin composite polishing.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Microscopic and statistical evaluation of the marginal defects of composite restorations: in vitro studies.Journal of medicine and life · 2024Article
- Impact of dental operative microscopes on precision in minimally invasive dental restoration procedures.American journal of translational research · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective of the present study was to compare the outcome of direct composite restorations, with and without the use of additional magnification. Methods: Twenty extracted molars were selected for the study. Class 1 Black cavities were prepared. All teeth were etched, and bonding agent was applied. Teeth were assigned randomly into two groups of ten each. Group I: restorations were done without the use of magnification, first by placing a layer of SDR® flow +Bulk Fill Flowable on the base of the cavity, and then restoring the morphology with Ceram.X SphereTEC® One. Group II: the same protocol was applied, but using the dental microscope. Teeth were then evaluated before and after finishing the protocol by 5 dental professionals using a series of established criteria. The results were documented and statistically analyzed using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. Results: Statistically significant differences were found when using magnification, before the polishing protocol in "marginal adaptation integrity" and "excess material", and after polishing in "marginal adaptation integrity". Conclusions: Magnification may be used to increase the quality of the final direct posterior restoration by improving the marginal adaptation integrity, reducing excess material, preventing marginal microleakage, and avoiding subsequent failure.
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.