Choosing the Criteria for Clinical Evaluation of Composite Restorations: An Analysis of Impact on Reliabilty and Treatment Decision

Cleber Paradzinski  Cavalheiro; Pablo Soares  de Souza; Rachel de Oliveira  Rocha; Fausto Medeiros  Mendes; Mariana Minatel  Braga; Daniela Prócida  Raggio; Tathiane Larissa  Lenzi

Authors

Cleber Paradzinski Cavalheiro
Pablo Soares de Souza
Rachel de Oliveira Rocha
Fausto Medeiros Mendes
Mariana Minatel Braga
Daniela Prócida Raggio
Tathiane Larissa Lenzi

Keywords:

Clinical Decision-Making, Dental Restoration Failure, Tooth, Deciduous

Abstract

Objective: To assess the reproducibility of two clinical criteria for the evaluation of restorations in primary teeth and the impact on treatment decision. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed selecting 71 resin-based composite restorations placed in primary molars of children who had sought dental treatment at a dental school. Two trained examiners evaluated independently the restorations using modified FDI and USPHS criteria. All restorations were assessed separately with each system in random order to avoid memory bias. Kappa statistics were used to determine inter-examiner reliability considering each parameter of both criteria and score final about treatment decision. McNemar test was used to compare the treatment decision with two criteria. The significance level was set at 5%. Results: Kappa values ranged from 0.28 to 0.93 with USPHS and 0.28 to 0.88 with FDI, considering each parameter separately. Inter- examiner agreement for treatment decision was excellent for both criteria (Kappa: 0.85-0.90). For clinical decision-making, no difference between criteria was found, irrespective of examiner. Conclusion: Low inter- examiner agreement for evaluation of each parameter of USPHS and FDI criteria does not reflect on reproducibility for treatment decision. Both criteria may be suitable for evaluation of composite restorations in primary teeth.

References

Bücher K, Tautz A, Hickel R, Kühnisch J. Longevity of composite restorations in patients with early childhood caries (ECC). Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18(3):775-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1043-y

Pinto GS, Oliveira LJ, Romano AR, Schardosim LR, Bonow ML, Pacce M, et al. Longevity of posterior restorations in primary teeth: results from a paediatric dental clinic. J Dent 2014; 42(10):1248-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.08.005

Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, et al. FDI World Dental Federation - clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J Adhes Dent 2010; 12(4):259-72. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a19262

Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2005; 9(4):215-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z

dos Santos MP, Passos M, Luiz RR, Maia LC. A randomized trial of resin-based restorations in class I and class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 24-month results. J Am Dent Assoc 2009; 140(2):156-66. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0129

Casagrande L, Dalpian DM, Ardenghi TM, Zanatta FB, Balbinot CE, García-Godoy F, et al. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results. Am J Dent 2013; 26(6):351-5.

Sengul F, Gurbuz T. Clinical evaluation of restorative materials in primary teeth Class II lesions. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015; 39(4):315-21. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-39.4.315

Bektas Donmez S, Uysal S, Dolgun A, Turgut MD. Clinical performance of aesthetic restorative materials in primary teeth according to the FDI criteria. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2016; 17(3):202-12.

Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, Borges AF, Silva TN, Puppin-Rontani RM, et al . Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent 2006; 34(6):381-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2005.08.003

Wilson MA, Cowan AJ, Randall RC, Crisp RJ, Wilson NH. A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results. Oper Dent 2002; 27(5):423-9.

Foley JI. Dental students consistency in applying the ICDAS system within paediatric dentistry. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2012; 13(6):319-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03320834

Moncada G, Vildósola P, Fernández E, Estay J, de Oliveira Júnior OB, de Andrade MF, et al. Longitudinal results of a 10-year clinical trial of repair of amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 2015; 40(1):34-43. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-045-C

Gordan VV, Riley JL 3rd, Blaser PK, Mondragon E, Garvan CW, Mjör IA. Alternative treatments to replacementof defective amalgam restorations: results of a seven-year clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc 2011; 142(7):842-9. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0274

Gordan VV, Riley J 3rd, Geraldeli S, Williams OD, Spoto JC 3rd, Gilbert GH, et al. The decision to repair and replace a defective restoration is affected by who placed the original restoration: findings from the National Dental PBNR. J Dent 2014; 42(12):1528-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.005

Deligeorgi V, Mjör IA, Wilson NH. An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations. Prim Dent Care 2001; 8(1):5-11. https://doi.org/10.1308/135576101771799335

Wong DL, Baker CM. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs 1988; 14(1):9-17.