ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
The effect of contouring instruments on immediate quality and porosity of direct restorations.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aims to evaluate the effect of contouring instruments on the porosity and immediate quality of direct dental restorations. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifteen human molars with 30 Class II and 10 Class V cavities were restored by five voluntary dentists using three contouring instruments (conventional steel, silicone-tipped and diamond-like carbon coated-instruments) and three filling materials (Admira Fusion, Filtek Supreme XTE and Fuji II LC). The restorations were evaluated for immediate quality, porosity and number of pores using stereomicroscope and micro-computed tomography. Statistical analysis included the Shapiro‒Wilk test for normality, one-way ANOVA with Holm‒Sidak post hoc test for normal data, Kruskal‒Wallis ANOVA and Dunn's test for non-normal data, and Fisher's exact test for restoration quality comparisons. Statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe proportion of restorations with acceptable immediate quality was higher for the restorations that had been contoured using a diamond-coated non-stick contouring instrument compared to the restorations that had been contoured using a conventional steel instrument (p = 0.033). The number of pores and porosity were similar for restorations that had been contoured with different contouring instruments. However, the number of pores and porosity were lowest in the restorations made of Filtek Supreme XTE followed by Admira Fusion and Fuji II LC.
conclusionThe use of diamond-like carbon-coated contouring instruments increased the proportion of acceptable composite restorations compared to conventional steel instruments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Non-stick contouring instruments should be considered for wider use.
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.