Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials

Hickel, Reinhard; Roulet, Jean‐François; Bayne, Stephen C.; Heintze, Siegward D.; Mjör, Ivar A.; Peters, Mathilde C.; Rousson, Valentin; Randall, Ross; Schmalz, Gottfried; Tyas, Martin J.; Vanherle, Guido

doi:10.1111/j.1875-595x.2007.tb00136.x

Cited by 116 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The shortcomings of the current evaluation criteria and a need for evaluating marginal integrity and marginal discoloration in a more standardized way were emphasized and the use of new, more detailed evaluation criteria was recommended by Hickel and others. 36 The nutritional habits of patients, especially the frequency of consuming products that stain the teeth, may also contribute to the different results from the different studies. 37 In addition, differences in cavity designs and chewing forces affecting the teeth examined may be the reason for differences in the results of these studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Clinical Performance of a Two-step Self-etch Adhesive with Additional Enamel Etching in Class III Cavities

Ermiş¹,

Temel²,

Çelik³

et al. 2010

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study evaluated the effect of additional enamel etching on the clinical performance of Class III composite restorations bonded with a mild two-step self-etch adhesive system in a three-year evaluation of clinical service.Methods: Using a paired-tooth study design, 38 patients received at least one pair of restorations. In each paired cavity, a mild two-step selfetch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) was used, either with (C-SE etch) or without additional enamel etching, using phosphoric acid (C-SE non-etch). Clearfil AP-X was used as the restorative material for all restorations. Evaluation of the restorations was performed at baseline and after six months, one year, two years and three years of clinical service in terms of retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, postoperative sensitivity and secondary caries using the modified Ryge criteria.Results: A retention rate of 100% both for the C-SE non-etch and C-SE etch groups was noted. Significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the marginal discoloration

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Clinical Performance of a Two-step Self-etch Adhesive with Additional Enamel Etching in Class III Cavities

Ermiş¹,

Temel²,

Çelik³

et al. 2010

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The original United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria were developed more than 40 years ago and have since become less sensitive for identifying differences between current materials [105]. In order to detect early deterioration, it would be helpful to have a more discriminative scale.…”

Section: Clinical Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, meta-analysis of the clinical data of resin composite restorations seems to be difficult because of the ambiguity of USPHS criteria and the process of conducting and reporting clinical trials [105,106]. Chadwick et al [107] comprehensively discussed the problems associated with outcome measures of restoration failures.…”

Section: Clinical Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has been a need for the development of reliable and more objective criteria for clinical performance of restorations based on evidence and minimal intervention policy. In these circumstances, FDI criteria were published in 2007 and they should be applied as standard criteria when restorative materials and/or operative techniques are to be clinically investigated [105]. These criteria were updated in 2010, modifications and/or alternatives are possible if good documentation can be presented [108].…”

Section: Clinical Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Replacement criteria may have a great effect on the longevity of resin composite restorations [3,105,106]. Our questionnaire studies on decision-making [109,110] revealed a wide variation in the treatments commonly used for marginal discoloration (Fig.…”

Section: Clinical Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Challenges to the clinical placement and evaluation of adhesively-bonded, cervical composite restorations

Kubo

Yokota

et al. 2013

Dental Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The incidence of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) has been increasing.The clinical performance of resin composites in NCCLS was previously unsatisfactory due to their non-retentive forms and margins lying on dentin. In order to address this problem, a lot of effort has been put into developing new dentin adhesives and restorative techniques. This article discusses these challenges and the criteria used for evaluating clinical performance as they relate to clinical studies, especially long-term clinical trials. Polymerization contraction, thermal changes and occlusal forces generate debonding stresses at adhesive interfaces.Methods: In laboratory studies, we have investigated how these stresses can be relieved by various restorative techniques and how bond strength and durability can be enhanced. Lesion forms, restorative techniques, adhesives (adhesive strategies, bond strengths, bond durability, and the relationship between enamel and dentin bond strengths) were found to have a complex relationship with microleakage. With regard to some restorative techniques, only several short-term clinical studies were available.

show abstract

Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries

Agnihotry

Fedorowicz

Nasser

2016

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is no evidence to either claim or refute a difference in survival between bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations. This review only found one under-reported trial. This trial did not find any significant difference in the in-service performance of moderately sized adhesively bonded amalgam restorations, in terms of their survival rate and marginal integrity, in comparison to non-bonded amalgam restorations over a two-year period. In view of the lack of evidence on the additional benefit of adhesively bonding amalgam in comparison with non-bonded amalgam, it is important that clinicians are mindful of the additional costs that may be incurred.

show abstract

Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials

Cited by 116 publications

References 1 publication

Clinical Performance of a Two-step Self-etch Adhesive with Additional Enamel Etching in Class III Cavities

Clinical Performance of a Two-step Self-etch Adhesive with Additional Enamel Etching in Class III Cavities

Challenges to the clinical placement and evaluation of adhesively-bonded, cervical composite restorations

Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About