ArticleHeliyon2024
The role of visual aids in the clinical success of posterior restorations: Randomized controlled clinical trial.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of single shade universal resin composites: a randomized controlled one year follow-up study.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.