ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
A comparative study of the prognostic outcomes of periodontal soft tissue health in traditional restoration and micro-invasive restoration with the use of microscopy.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the treatment efficacy of conventional restoration techniques versus micro-invasive restoration techniques utilizing a microscope in the restorative treatment for dental caries.
methodsThe clinical information of 84 patients who received restorative treatment for dental caries was retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of restoration they received. The control group (n=42) underwent traditional restorative treatment, while the observation group (n=42) underwent micro-invasive restoration with the use of a microscope. The restoration effect, marginal fit, periodontal soft tissue health (Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) score), prognostic outcomes, satisfaction rate, and doctor's posture health were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe success restoration rate was 92.86% in the control group and 95.24% in the observation group (P > 0.05). The vertical marginal discrepancy, horizontal marginal discrepancy, and absolute marginal discrepancy values were significantly lower in the observation group compared to the control group (all P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in pre-treatment OHIP-14 scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the post-treatment OHIP-14 score was significantly lower in the observation group compared to the control group (P < 0.05). After a 12-month follow-up, the observation group showed higher proportions of A-level restoration integrity, marginal fit, gingival health, fewer secondary caries, and less food impaction compared to the control group (all P < 0.05). The satisfaction rate in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (95.24% vs. 92.86%, P < 0.05). The posture score of doctors in the observation group was significantly better than that in the control group (P < 0.05).
conclusionMicro-invasive restoration using a microscope, compared to traditional restoration, offers several advantages. It reduces marginal discrepancies, improves periodontal soft tissue health, and enhances prognostic outcomes for patients, while ensuring a satisfactory restoration effect.
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.