ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Evaluation of Patient Outcomes with Different Aesthetic Restorative Materials Used in Anterior Tooth Restorations: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluates the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction with different aesthetic restorative materials used in anterior tooth restorations, focusing on their functional, aesthetic, and psychological impacts. Materials and Methods: A comparative study was conducted with 120 patients requiring anterior restorations. Three groups were formed based on the materials used: composite resin, porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM), and zirconia restorations. Parameters, like aesthetic satisfaction, functionality, longevity, and complications, were assessed using validated questionnaires and clinical follow-ups over 12 months. Results: Composite resin restorations achieved high initial aesthetic satisfaction but showed deterioration over time. PFM restorations provided moderate aesthetic outcomes with higher functional durability. Zirconia restorations outperformed in both aesthetic and functional parameters, with minimal complications reported. Conclusion: Zirconia demonstrated superior performance across aesthetic and functional parameters, offering a reliable option for anterior restorations. Composite resins may suit short-term needs, while PFM restorations remain practical for durability-focused applications.
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.