Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39640606›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

The role of visual aids in the clinical success of posterior restorations: Randomized controlled clinical trial.

İpek Çubukcu, Merve İşcan Yapar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

2 authors.

İpek ÇubukcuDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, TR-25240, Erzurum, Turkey.
Merve İşcan YaparDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, TR-25240, Erzurum, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This clinical study aimed to assess the impact of utilizing loupes and dental operating microscopes (DOM) with varying magnifications on the success of class II direct composite restorations. Methods: A total of 130 class II, moderately deep caries teeth from 85 patients were randomly assigned to four groups: naked eye, ×3 loupe, ×5 loupe, and ×8.5 DOM. Cavities were restored with or without magnification. The restorations were evaluated according to World Dental Federation criteria at 1, 6, and 12-month intervals by previously calibrated evaluators. Cochran's Q test was used to compare paired scores across three or more time points within groups, while the Friedman test was employed to compare scores at three or more time points. Multiple comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. Results: Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences among the groups at the 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up periods (p > 0.05). Although not statistically significant, the magnified groups exhibited higher scores in aesthetic anatomical form, proximal form, postoperative sensitivity, periodontal response, and adjacent mucosalcriteria compared to the naked eye group. Conclusion: Although no statistically significant difference was observed at the 12-month follow-up between restorations performed with and without magnification, the groups using magnification showed higher scores.

Indexed as

Clinical trialFDI criteriaMicromanipulationPermanent dental restoration

Identifiers

PMID39640606
PMCPMC11620113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.