Observational studyBMC oral health2026
Enhancing proximal contact assessment: a reproducible, clinically applicable chairside classification system- a cross-sectional observational study.
Observational study in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAchieving optimal proximal contacts and marginal integrity is crucial for the success and longevity of dental restorations. This cross-sectional observational in-vivo study aimed to (i) propose a standardized classification index for evaluating proximal contact tightness using dental floss, and (ii) assess the quality of proximal contacts and marginal integrity in various types of direct and indirect restorations using the proposed classification.
methodsIn this cross – sectional observational study, 344 teeth with diverse restorations (crowns, GIC, composite, amalgam) in posterior teeth were evaluated. Proximal contacts were assessed visually and by tactile methods using a novel index that is standardized. Marginal integrity was assessed using the USPHS-modified criteria. Categories Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, and Delta were used to evaluate restoration performance. Proximal contacts were categorized as open, tight, appropriate, or poor. Marginal integrity was categorized as excellent, acceptable, requirement of clinical intervention and unacceptable. Statistical analyses explored associations between contact/integrity and restoration type, restoration surface, and other factors.
resultsThe prevalence of restorations with appropriate proximal contacts was 34.6%, followed by tight (28.5%), open (24.1%), and poor (12.8%). Crowns exhibited the highest frequency of appropriate contacts (47.4%), followed by GIC (Glass Ionomer Cement) (24.7%), composite (13.4%), and amalgam (14.5%). A substantial amount of the restorations was categorized as acceptable (51.5%) for marginal integrity. 38.9% of the restorations were categorized as charlie, suggestive of repair of the restoration to prevent marginal leakage. Only 8.1% of the restorations were categorized as excellent and 1.5% as unacceptable. A statistically significant association was found between proximal contact tightness and restoration type (p = 0.034), with crowns showcasing superior contact compared to direct restorations. Additionally, a significant association existed between contact tightness and restoration surface involved, with mesio-occlusal surfaces demonstrating more appropriate contacts than distal surfaces. It was seen that single crowns had the most acceptable marginal integrity [n = 110], followed by GIC [n = 50], amalgam [n = 50] and then composite [n = 20]. There is a statistically significant association between marginal integrity and type of restoration.
conclusionA standardized index has been evaluated and this was applied to obtain outcome measures in a quantitative manner. The results suggest that single crowns showed maximum appropriate contacts. Single crowns also had the most acceptable marginal integrity, followed by GIC, amalgam and then composite. This shows that indirect restorations show superior proximal contact and marginal integrity as compared to direct restorations. There is a statistically significant association between the proximal contact and the restoration surface involved.
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.