Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga, Ica, Peru.
J Dent. 2021 Oct;113:103757. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103757. Epub 2021 Jul 30.
This study investigated whether a sample of anterior resin composite restorations could be differently evaluated in different centers of evaluation by clinical and lay evaluators.
Anterior resin composite restorations on high-quality intraoral digital photography were evaluated using FDI criteria (1-5 score) by pairs of clinical and lay evaluators in Brazil (BR), France (FR), Peru (PE), and the United States of America (USA). Scores were allocated as maintenance (1, 2, 3), repair (4) and replacement (5) when comparing clinical evaluators and, as acceptable (1, 2, 3) and unacceptable (4, 5) when comparing clinical vs. lay evaluators and lay vs. lay evaluators. The Chi-square test compared the frequencies of scores among the centers.
The frequencies of maintaining, repairing, or replacing anterior resin composite restorations given by clinical evaluators varied depending on the evaluation center. BR and PE showed the highest frequencies for repair and replacement, while FR and USA showed the highest frequencies for maintenance. The comparison of frequencies of anterior resin composite restorations accepted or unaccepted by the clinical vs lay evaluators in the same centers showed a significantly higher frequency of acceptable dental restorations coming from clinical evaluators. Comparison between lay evaluators from different centers showed significant higher frequency of unacceptable dental restorations by BR, compared to other centers.
In the evaluation of anterior resin composite restorations, the maintenance, repair, or replacement trends can vary among different centers. The unacceptable rate came more frequently from lay than from clinical evaluators. Lay evaluators from different centers differed significantly.
Clinical and lay evaluators in distant evaluation centers can present different trends when assessing anterior resin composite restoration. Multicenter evaluations can help to understand such differences and it is important because clinical decision-making based on scientific evidence comes from clinical studies done in different research centers.
本研究调查了临床和非临床评估者在不同评估中心对样本前牙树脂复合材料修复体的评估是否存在差异。
使用 FDI 标准（1-5 分），巴西（BR）、法国（FR）、秘鲁（PE）和美国（USA）的临床和非临床评估者对高质量口腔内数码照片上的前牙树脂复合材料修复体进行了配对评估。当比较临床评估者时，评分分配为维护（1、2、3）、修复（4）和更换（5），而当比较临床与非临床评估者以及非临床与非临床评估者时，评分分配为可接受（1、2、3）和不可接受（4、5）。卡方检验比较了各中心的评分频率。
临床评估者给出的维持、修复或更换前牙树脂复合材料修复体的频率因评估中心而异。BR 和 PE 显示修复和更换的频率最高，而 FR 和 USA 显示维持的频率最高。同一中心临床与非临床评估者评估的前牙树脂复合材料修复体可接受与不可接受的频率比较显示，临床评估者给出的可接受牙科修复体频率明显更高。不同中心的非临床评估者之间的比较显示，BR 给出的不可接受的牙科修复体频率明显高于其他中心。
在前牙树脂复合材料修复体的评估中，不同中心之间的维持、修复或更换趋势可能存在差异。不可接受的比率更多地来自非临床评估者而不是临床评估者。来自不同中心的非临床评估者存在显著差异。
在遥远评估中心的临床和非临床评估者在评估前牙树脂复合材料修复体时可能存在不同的趋势。多中心评估有助于理解这些差异，这很重要，因为基于科学证据的临床决策来自于不同研究中心进行的临床研究。
