ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
Assessing Enamel Thickness to Estimate Interproximal Reduction: A CBCT-Based Study.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aims of this study were to (1) estimate the mesial and distal proximal enamel thickness available (PETa), (2) estimate the proximal enamel thickness remaining (PETr) on the basis of planned IPR, and (3) assess PETr-associated risks with varying IPR amounts. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using CBCT scans. PETa was estimated using on-demand software. Mesial and distal PET were measured at the middle third of the crown. The means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the PETa and PETr data are reported. Differences between the mesial and distal PETa values were compared.
resultsA total of 1615 teeth were analyzed via CBCT. The mean PETa values ranged from 0.96 to 1.29 mm (mesial) and from 0.98 to 1.25 mm (distal). Differences between mesial and distal PETa were statistically significant, averaging 0.10 mm proximally (p < 0.050). In particular, these differences were observed in cuspids, including tooth 13 (1.18 ± 0.24 vs. 1.25 ± 0.28; p = 0.021), tooth 23 (1.25 ± 0.26 vs. 1.15 ± 0.28; p < 0.001), tooth 33 (1.22 ± 0.26 vs. 1.10 ± 0.23; p < 0.001), and tooth 43 (1.29 ± 0.24 vs. 1.13 ± 0.20; p < 0.001). The mean PETr values for single-site IPRs < 0.4 mm were 0.58 mm (mesial) and 0.57 mm (distal). Exceeding a single-site IPR of 0.20 mm significantly increased the proportion of interproximal sites classified as moderate or high risk, particularly in teeth with thinner enamel (< 0.7 mm).
conclusionsPETa and PETr are critical for determining safe and individualized IPR. CBCT-based PETa evaluations are strongly recommended when single-site IPRs exceeding 0.20 mm are planned to increase precision and reduce the risk of excessive enamel reduction.
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.