ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2024
Comparative clinical evaluation of correct anatomic contour and tight contact in Class II direct composite restoration using two newer contact forming instruments.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sample size calculation practices in original research articles of the Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (2021-2025).Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Incidence of restoration failure and its etiology: A retrospective study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Assessment of anatomical contacts and contours of class II restorations using four different dental matrix systems: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Comparing metal onlay and full crown in root canal treated molars with single proximal defect - An 18-month clinical study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate proximal contact tightness and contours using two newer contact-forming systems in Class II composite restorations. Materials and Methods: After institutional ethical approval and Clinical Trials Registry-India registration, patients were chosen according to the inclusion-exclusion criteria with informed consent. A total of 60 patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Group A: LM Arte contact former ( Statistical Methods: The data were analyzed using the Chi-Square test with SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) software version 18.0, IBM. Results: A statistically significant reduction in gingival index score was observed in both groups 6 months and 1 year after the procedure. However, the values revealed in terms of gingival index ( Conclusion: Both the LM Arte and TDV contact-forming systems are effective in establishing perfect proximal contacts and contours. However, the LM Arte contact-forming system edges out the TDV contact-forming system.
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.