ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of proximal contact tightness and associated factors in posterior resin composite restorations: a cross-sectional study in Nairobi, Kenya.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global shift from dental amalgam to direct posterior resin composite restorations (RCRs), driven by aesthetic demands and the Minamata Convention, has increased the need to evaluate their clinical performance. Establishing proper proximal contact tightness (PCT) in Class II restorations is a critical, technique-sensitive parameter required to prevent food impaction, periodontal disease, and restoration failure. In Nairobi, Kenya, there is a lack of local data regarding technical failures like deficiencies in proximal contact tightness. This study aimed to evaluate the proximal contact tightness of Class II posterior RCRs placed over a five-year period and their associated factors in selected dental institutions in Nairobi.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at three sites: a private facility (UoNDP), a teaching hospital (UoNDS), and a public hospital (KNHDD). A total of 159 Class II RCRs placed between 2014 and 2019 were selected for clinical examination. PCT was assessed using a tactile method with dental floss and recorded using a modified United States Public Health Survey (USPHS) tool modified to include class II PCT categorized as either tight, loose, or open. Data were analyzed using STATA v.19, employing Chi-square tests and multivariate analysis to identify associated factors.
resultsOf the 139 assessable restorations, 56.8% (n = 79) had tight contacts, while 43.2% (n = 60) exhibited unacceptable proximal tightness (22.3% loose and 20.9% open). Disparities between facilities were significant; 75% of restorations at KNHDD had unacceptable contacts, compared to 26.7% at UoNDP and 30% at UoNDS. Multivariate analysis revealed that placement at KNHDD was associated with both open (aRRR = 6.17, p = 0.038) and loose contacts (aRRR = 38.73, p = 0.005). Secondary caries showed an association with loose contacts (aRRR = 6.78, p = 0.001). The age of the restoration was found to confound the relationship between both facility and secondary caries, and PCT.
conclusionsThe prevalence of inadequate proximal contacts in class II posterior RCRs across three Nairobi dental facilities was high (43.2%), with open and loose contacts associated with the facility and loose contacts associated with secondary caries, highlighting the need for standardized protocols, better training, improved access to materials, and future studies to investigate the impact of procedural and operator factors in resource-limited settings.
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.