Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France; Laboratoire « Biomatériaux et Inflammation en Site Osseux » EA 4691, Structure Fédérative de Recherche CAP Santé, FED 4231, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France; Pôle de Médecine Bucco-Dentaire de Reims, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, Reims, France.
Université de Paris Cité, Paris, France; Service de Médecine Bucco-Detaire, Hôpital Charles Foix, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Ivry-sur-Seine, France; Laboratoire UR 2496 Pathologies, Imagerie et Biothérapie Orofaciales, Université de Paris, UR 2496, Montrouge, France.
J Dent. 2022 Jul;122:104109. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104109. Epub 2022 Mar 26.
Assess the quality of dental restorations with simplified FDI criteria and examine its relationships with other general characteristics of restored teeth.
The study involved 76 dentists from private and hospital practices. Assessments of successes and failures of previous restorations used a simplified rating with FDI criteria 3 to 8, 11, 12, and 14. The results were examined versus tooth location, number of restored surfaces, type of restoration, and filling material.
The dentists examined 4,612 dental restorations, of which 4,185 direct fillings mainly with resin composite materials (2,555). Of all restorations, 2,048 (44.4%) were considered as failures, of which 1,489 had one or two criteria for 'clinically unsatisfactory/poor restoration'. As simplified, the esthetic criterion 'color match' was the most frequent criterion for failure (912 cases). The rate of restoration failures was found associated with the number of surfaces restored and the use of glass-ionomer cement. Results are not comparable with others obtained with original FDI criteria.
Assessing dental restorations with the original FDI criteria leads generally to much more failure statements than practitioners' decisions to reintervene. Though requiring some adjustment (e.g., regarding 'color match'), the simplified assessment proved convenient and amenable to standardization.
Regardless of the type of practice, selecting, understanding, and optimal interpreting of FDI criteria for failure is essential to help practitioners faced with daily dilemmas of replacement vs. repair of failed dental restorations. Standardization of simplified criteria is desirable to help comparing research data.
使用简化的 FDI 标准评估牙修复体的质量,并研究其与其他修复牙一般特征的关系。
本研究涉及来自私人和医院实践的 76 名牙医。使用简化的 FDI 标准 3 至 8、11、12 和 14 对既往修复体的成功和失败进行评估。结果与牙齿位置、修复表面数量、修复类型和填充材料进行了检查。
牙医检查了 4612 个牙修复体,其中 4185 个直接填充主要是树脂复合材料(2555 个)。在所有修复体中,2048 个(44.4%)被认为是失败的,其中 1489 个有一个或两个“临床不满意/差修复体”标准。简化后,美学标准“颜色匹配”是失败的最常见标准(912 例)。修复体失败的发生率与修复表面数量和使用玻璃离子水门汀有关。结果与使用原始 FDI 标准获得的结果不可比。
使用原始 FDI 标准评估牙修复体通常会导致更多的失败声明,而不是从业者决定重新干预。尽管需要进行一些调整(例如,关于“颜色匹配”),但简化的评估证明是方便且易于标准化的。
无论实践类型如何,选择、理解和最佳解释 FDI 标准对于帮助面临更换与修复失败牙修复体日常困境的从业者都至关重要。简化标准的标准化有助于帮助比较研究数据。