Trial reportBMC oral health2023
Evaluation of the proximal contact tightness in class II resin composite restorations using different contact forming instruments: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05749640 (Clinical Evaluation of the Proximal Contact Tightness and Location in Class II Composite Restoration Using Different Contact Forming Instruments), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Clinical Evaluation of the Proximal Contact Tightness and Location in Class II Composite Restoration Using Different Contact Forming Instruments
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of short fiber-reinforced and indirect resin composites in class I and class II restorations: A three-year randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Trial
- Review
- Evaluation of proximal contact tightness and associated factors in posterior resin composite restorations: a cross-sectional study in Nairobi, Kenya.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of matrix system on the quality of proximal contact in posterior bulk-fill resin composite restorations- an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Assessment of anatomical contacts and contours of class II restorations using four different dental matrix systems: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- The Evaluation of Restored Proximal Contact Areas with Four Direct Adherent Biomaterials: An In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Comparison of the 2-year clinical performances of class II restorations using different restorative materials.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Proximal Contact Tightness in Anterior Resin Composite Restorations: A ComparativeJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProper proximal contact in direct composite restorations is crucial for periodontal health. Over a one-year period, this study was conducted to assess successive biological changes in proximal contact tightness PCT in class II direct composite restorations and the adjacent teeth by applying sectional matrix system along with different contact forming instruments.
methods72 direct compound class II composite restorations were performed in patients aged 18-40 years and divided into 4 groups: Group I (n = 18): proximal contact was restored with Palodent plus sectional matrix system, Group II (n = 18): Trimax as contact forming instrument, Group III (n = 18): Perform as contact forming instrument and Group IV (n = 18): Contact pro as contact forming instrument. All contact forming instruments were used along with Palodent plus matrix system. PCT was measured using a digital force gauge before (T0), immediate post operative (T1) and at 3 (T2), 6 (T3), 9 (T4), and 12 months (T5) after restorative treatment. Using One-Way ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc test, and Bonferroni correction, PCT values were compared between groups before and after the intervention restoration. Meanwhile, for comparisons within groups, a paired t-test was conducted (p ≤ 0.05).
resultsContact forming instruments combined with Palodent plus sectional matrix system achieved better PCT. Trimax led to a statistically considerable tighter proximal contacts than the other groups (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in PCT between Contact pro-2, Perform and Palodent plus sectional matrix system. By means of multivariate analysis, the PCT between both T0 and T1 were increased (p < 0.001) and then it decreased till T5.
conclusionsThe use of transparent contact forming instruments achieved greater PCT compared to Palodent sectional matrix system alone that gradually decreased throughout 12 months and reached the PCT between the natural teeth. Using Trimax system provided the tightest proximal contacts. Additionally, digital force gauge was confirmed as an inclusive and accurate method to quantify PCT.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05749640: 24/5/2022.
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.