Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38147139›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023

Biological evaluation of indirect restorations in endodontically treated posterior teeth with deeply located proximal margins following deep margin elevation versus surgical crown lengthening: a randomized controlled trial.

Ahmed Tarek Farouk, Olfat El Sayed Hassanein, Ola Ibrahim Fahmy, Ahmed M Elkady, Hani ElNahass

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interdisciplinary Delphi study by PROSEC North America: Recommendations on single indirect restorations made from ceramic and nonmetallic biomaterials for posterior teeth.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ahmed Tarek FaroukDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Olfat El Sayed HassaneinDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ola Ibrahim FahmyOperative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed M ElkadyDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Hani ElNahassDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. Hani.elnahass@dentistry.cu.edu.eg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe current clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of proximal indirect restorations in endodontically treated posterior teeth with deeply located margins following deep margin elevation compared to surgical crown lengthening. MATERIAL AND

methodsDeep proximal cavities in endodontically treated posterior teeth were randomly assigned into two groups; deep margin elevation (DME) or crown lengthening (CL). The clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), crestal bone level (CBL), and secondary caries were evaluated at the baseline, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

resultsA total of 20 proximal cavities were included in the study; there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding mean CAL values at the baseline and 1 month, while there was a significant difference between the two groups in all other periods. Regarding the PD, there was no statistical significance between the two groups except at 9 and 12 months, where CL showed higher mean PD values than DME. There was no statistically significant difference in BOP or CBL between the two groups.

conclusionsDME and CL are considered clinically successful with favorable biologic responses. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The deep margin elevation approach could provide a more conservative solution when relocating deeply seated cervical margins in a more coronal position. DME reduced the number of visits and time needed for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Surgical crown lengthening remains a gold standard procedure in the re-establishment of the supracrestal tissue attachment, especially in cases where cervical margins are beyond the elevation capacity.

Indexed as

Dental CariesTooth, NonvitalCrown LengtheningHumansNeckBiological withCrown lengtheningDeep marginal elevationRandomized clinical trialSupracrestal attachment

Identifiers

PMID38147139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.