ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Classification of the Type of Contact Between Primary Molars as an Indicator of the Likelihood of Future Caries.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesContact areas between first and second primary molars, shaped by concave/convex proximal surface morphology, are associated with proximal caries with concave surfaces linked to biofilm stagnation. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical feasibility of a scoring system for classifying contact types (concave-concave, concave-convex, convex-convex, convex-concave) for dental practitioners.
methodsFollowing ethical approval and informed consent, 116 4-5-year-old children were enrolled. A calibrated examiner assessed caries on the distal of first molars and mesial of second molars using ICDAS-merged criteria and scored 464 proximal contacts clinically and radiographically. Stone models from silicone impressions were also scored by 17 trained practitioners, who repeated scoring a week later and assessed contacts clinically in six children. Practitioners completed a feasibility and satisfaction questionnaire.
resultsConvex-convex contacts were most prevalent (58.6%), followed by convex-concave (32.6%). Contact type significantly correlated with caries (OR = 13.5; 95% CI: 6.4-28.3). Inter- and intra-examiner reproducibility ranged from 0.71 to 0.82. Most practitioners felt very (64.7%) or moderately (35.3%) capable of applying the system, found it low in difficulty (70.6%), and expressed high satisfaction (82.4%).
conclusionsThe study indicated that it is possible for dental practitioners to classify the proximal contact types between primary molars both in an accurate and clinically feasible way. The system exhibited high reproducibility and practitioner satisfaction, indicating its potential as a valuable tool for identifying caries-prone surfaces and supporting evidence-based caries management.
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.