Trial reportJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2026
Evaluation of the Seating of Crowns After Adjusting Proximal Contacts Using Different Materials.
Trial report in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Seating of Crowns After Adjusting Proximal Contacts Using Different Materials.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAchieving physiologic proximal contact is essential for complete crown seating and long-term periodontal health. Improper adjustment can result in tight or open contacts, leading to incomplete seating, marginal discrepancies, food impaction, and discomfort. This study evaluated the seating accuracy of posterior single-unit porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crowns after proximal contact adjustment using different contact-indicating methods. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: In this prospective randomized clinical study, 124 patients requiring posterior single-unit PFM crowns were randomly allocated into four groups (n = 31 each): Artifol (8 μm), articulating paper (40 μm), Arti-Spot (3 μm), and visual acuity alone. Proximal contacts were adjusted during laboratory procedures according to the assigned method. At clinical try-in, seating was considered "perfect" if no further proximal adjustment was required. Intraoral periapical radiographs confirmed crown seating. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests (p < 0.05).
conclusionA significant association was observed between adjustment method and crown seating (p = 0.000). Arti-Spot demonstrated the highest number of perfectly seated crowns (29/31), whereas visual assessment showed the poorest results. Thin contact-indicating materials demonstrated more consistent outcomes in immediate chairside proximal contact assessment compared to other methods.
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.