The Normalized Failure Index: A Method for Summarizing the Results of Studies on Restoration Longevity?

Burke, F. J. T.; Singh, Veena; Wilson, Nairn

doi:10.2341/10-371-c

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is suggested to provide absolute numbers of failures and the overall number of evaluated restorations for each examination time point. There are different ways to calculate the mean annual failure rate or the normalized failure index besides the simple one dividing the total failure rate by the number of observation years [e.g., 37 , 38 ]: …”

Section: General Considerations For Clinical Studies On Dental Restor...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting

Hickel

Mesinger

Opdam³

et al. 2022

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The FDI criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect dental restorations were first published in 2007 and updated in 2010. Meanwhile, their scientific use increased steadily, but several questions from users justified some clarification and improvement of the living document. Materials and methods An expert panel (N = 10) initiated the revision and consensus process that included a kick-off workshop and multiple online meetings by using the Delphi method. During and after each round of discussion, all opinions were collected, and the aggregated summary was presented to the experts aiming to adjust the wording of the criteria as precisely as possible. Finally, the expert panel agreed on the revision. Results Some categories were redefined, ambiguities were cleared, and the descriptions of all scores were harmonized to cross-link different clinical situations with possible management strategies: reviewing/monitoring (score 1–4), refurbishment/reseal (score 3), repair (score 4), and replacement (score 5). Functional properties (domain F: fracture of material and retention, marginal adaptation, proximal contact, form and contour, occlusion and wear) were now placed at the beginning followed by biological (domain B: caries at restoration margin, hard tissue defects, postoperative hypersensitivity) and aesthetic characteristics (domain A: surface luster and texture, marginal staining, color match). Conclusion The most frequently used eleven categories of the FDI criteria set were revised for better understanding and handling. Clinical relevance The improved description and structuring of the criteria may help to standardize the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations and may enhance their acceptance by researchers, teachers, and dental practitioners.

show abstract

Section: General Considerations For Clinical Studies On Dental Restor...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting

Hickel

Mesinger

Opdam³

et al. 2022

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is known that heterogeneity of the data may cause problems when combining the results of a number of studies to provide an overview, for example, with a metaanalysis. 15 Using the NFI is an alternative way to systematically compare results obtained in heterogeneous studies, which weights the sample size and the AFR of the individual studies. Nonetheless, the present review included a reasonable number of studies involving posterior restorations but very few involving cervical and anterior restorations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, to combine the data of the included studies and compare the failure rate of traditional and nanofilled/nanohybrid composites, the normalized failure index (NFI) 15 was calculated according to the formula…”

Section: Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Nanofilled/Nanohybrid Composites Allow for Better Clinical Performance of Direct Restorations Than Traditional Microhybrid Composites? A Systematic Review

Angerame

Biasi

2018

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review was carried out to assess the clinical effectiveness of nanofilled and nanohybrid composites used for direct restorations in comparison with microhybrid composites. The guidelines for the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses were followed. A search of articles published from July 1996 to February 2017 was performed in PubMed, SciVerse Scopus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, and the Cochrane Library. The present review selected only randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical performance of a nanofilled or nanohybrid composite for direct restorations with that of a microhybrid composite. The research found 201 studies. Twenty-one articles fulfilled the criteria of the present review. However, the included studies were characterized by great methodological diversities. As a general trend, nanofilled and nanohybrid composites were found to be capable of clinical performance, marginal quality, and resistance to wear similar to that of traditional composites without showing improved surface characteristics. The risk of bias of included studies was judged unclear or high. The clinical performance of nanofilled/nanohybrid composites was found to be comparable to that of traditional composites in the posterior area. The data concerning anterior and cervical restorations were insufficient. With regard to the esthetic properties, there is a compelling need for studies on anterior teeth in which the operators are kept unaware of the restorative material. Nanofilled/nanohybrid composites seem to be a valid alternative to traditional microhybrid composites, and at the moment, there is low-level evidence attesting a lack of their superiority.

show abstract

“…Annual failure rate was also calculated. 20 To assess the association between restoration survival and explanatory variables, the multivariate Cox regression model with shared fragility was used. The final model included the variables with p ≤0.05 in the univariate analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pulp vitality of primary molars with deep caries treated with ART restorations: 2-year RCT

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the pulp vitality of primary teeth with deep caries treated with two restorative techniques. The restoration survival rate was also evaluated as a secondary outcome. Children aged from 4 to 8 years with at least one deep carious lesion in molars were selected at the Ibirapuera University dental clinic. One hundred and eight deciduous molars were allocated into two groups: (1) restoration with calcium hydroxide cement lining followed by filling with high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (CHC+HVGIC) or (2) restoration with HVGIC. Pulp vitality and restoration survival were evaluated at 6, 12, and 24 months. Intent-to-treat analysis was used for pulp vitality, and survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method (α=5%). Results: At 24 months, 86 restorations were evaluated, and 91 were evaluated at least once during the study. There was no significant difference between the restorative treatments regarding pulp vitality (CHC +HVGIC=70% and HVGIC=68.5%) (OR=1.091; CI95%=0.481-2.475). However, HVGIC (73%) restorations showed a higher survival rate than CHC+HVGIC (50%) (p=0.021). Thus, it can conclude that deep caries in primary molars should be restored with HVGIC, since the technique results in similar pulp vitality to the CHC +HVGIC, but with a higher restoration survival rate.

show abstract

The Normalized Failure Index: A Method for Summarizing the Results of Studies on Restoration Longevity?

Cited by 6 publications

References 28 publications

Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting

Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting

Do Nanofilled/Nanohybrid Composites Allow for Better Clinical Performance of Direct Restorations Than Traditional Microhybrid Composites? A Systematic Review

Pulp vitality of primary molars with deep caries treated with ART restorations: 2-year RCT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About