Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39450355›Full record

ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2024

Comparison of proximal contact and contours of class II restoration in premolars and molars restored with three different matrix systems using FDI criteria: An

Vanshish Sankhyan, Sameer Makkar, Shabnam Negi, Simran Gupta, Ayushi Jain, Garima Arora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors.

Vanshish SankhyanDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Sameer MakkarDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Shabnam NegiDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Simran GuptaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, India.
Ayushi JainDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Santosh Dental College Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Garima AroraDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Y.M.T Dental College and Hospital, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: Sectional matrix systems, namely, Garrison and Bioclear with contact rings, are valuable aids to establish proximal contact tightness and contours in Class II composite restorations when compared with the circumferential matrix system Tofflemire. Aims: This study aimed to compare the proximal contact and contours of Class II restoration in premolars and molars restored with Tofflemire, Garrison, and Bioclear matrix system by FDI criteria of approximal anatomical form using floss or 25-µm metal blade and radiographic examination. Subjects and Methods: Sixty Class II patients were selected, and a preoperative bitewing radiograph was taken. Initially, caries removal was done by round diamond bur, followed by 245 carbide bur. Samples were divided randomly into three groups based on the type of matrix system used for restoration. Group 1 ( Statistical Analysis Used: The statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS for Windows, Version 19.0). Descriptive statistics was calculated as frequency and percentage. The comparison of characteristics of the contact points, contour, and radiographic examination was carried out using the Chi-square test. Multiple comparisons were done by comparing column proportions with Bonferroni adjustments. The level of significance for the present study was fixed at Results: There were significantly higher proportions of normal contacts in Garrison (60%) and Bioclear (70%) compared to that in the Tofflemire (20%) matrix system (Bioclear > Garrison > Tofflemire). Comparison of contours showed normal contours with Garrison (50%), Bioclear (50%), and Tofflemire (15%) matrix system (Bioclear = Garrison > Tofflemire). In radiographic examination, harmonious transitions between the restoration and the tooth were similar in Garrison (30%) and Bioclear (30%) compared to the Tofflemire (15%) matrix system (Bioclear = Garrison > Tofflemire). Conclusions: Garrison and Bioclear sectional matrix systems established superior contacts and contours than the Tofflemire circumferential system.

Indexed as

Bioclear matrix systemcircumferential matrix systemGarrison matrix systemproximal contactsectional matrix systemTofflemire matrix system

Identifiers

PMID39450355
PMCPMC11498233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.