The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: A scoping review

Marquillier, Thomas; Doméjean, Sophie; Clerc, Justine Le; Chemla, Florence; Gritsch, Kerstin; Maurin, Jean‐Christophe; Millet, P.; Pérard, Matthieu; Grosgogeat, Brigitte; Dursun, Elisabeth

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.007

Cited by 83 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(88 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It covered 12 months, which is probably acceptable for primary teeth, but ideally, 2 years would provide more useful information. We used modified USPHS criteria, 21 as have many studies to evaluate the clinical performance of restorations, but FDI criteria 40 would give more detailed information for a 12-month study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One‐year clinical evaluation of two high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer cements in class II restorations of primary molars

Baba

Kırzıoğlu

Ceyhan

2020

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Little information exists on the clinical performance of restorative materials on primary teeth of preschool children. This study aimed to evaluate clinical performance of compomer, glass-hybrid-added high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement and zinc-added high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement materials in class ΙΙ restorations of primary molars. Methods: The study included 251 teeth of 57 patients aged 4-7 years with proximal caries in primary molars. The teeth were divided into three groups, and each restorative material was randomly distributed. Dyract XP, Equia Forte and ChemFil Rock materials were placed after cavity preparation and clinically evaluated at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months using modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square and z tests. Results: At the end of 12 months, a total of three restorations in Dyract XP group, 22 in Equia Forte group and 11 in ChemFil Rock group failed in retention criteria. No statistically significant difference existed between retention, colour match and surface texture criteria of all groups at 3 and 6 months, but a statistically significant difference was found at 12 months (P < 0.05). Conclusion: For class ΙΙ restorations of primary molars, the success of compomer material was superior to high-viscosity glass-ionomer materials.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One‐year clinical evaluation of two high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer cements in class II restorations of primary molars

Baba

Kırzıoğlu

Ceyhan

2020

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the clinical assessment of dental restorations, modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria and FDI criteria are the most used [36],had developed a more sensitive, discriminative practical, relevant, and standardized scale than the modified USPHS criteria based on three criteria categories: aesthetic, functional and biological. Since then the percentage of studies using FDI criteria increased from 4.5% in2010 to 50.0% in 2016, with surface luster, surface staining and color match considered of the most employed criteria regarding aesthetic evaluation [37].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Performance of Direct Anterior Composite Restorations Using Esthetic Dual-Shade versus Polychromatic Natural Layering Technique: a split mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Elzayat¹,

Elsayed²,

Zoghby³

2020

BDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: to evaluate the clinical performance of the dual shade layering and polychromatic resin composite layering techniques using a randomized controlled trail. Material and Methods: 42 participants (84 restorations) of class IV or class III through and through within a pair of anterior contra-lateral teeth were randomly allocated into two groups according to technique of composite restoration placement: control “polychromatic layering” and intervention “dual-shade layering”. Follow-up was done at 1 month (baseline) and 1 year. Restorations were evaluated using Visual Analog Scale (VAS), restoration color shade match using Vita Easyshade V ®, and blinded assessor using FDI criteria for assessment of dental restorations measuring (aesthetic properties). Chi-square test was used to compare between restorations of both techniques. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between restorations of both techniques for patient satisfaction outcome, restorations color match outcome, and for all tested FDI outcomes except surface luster with 100% success. Conclusion: Both dual-shade layering and polychromatic natural layering techniques, exhibited acceptable clinical and esthetic performance. Keywords Composite; Polychromatic layering technique; Dual-shade layering technique; Clinical performance.

show abstract

“…The USPHS system lacks the sensitivity to record small early changes, therefore, in 2007 the FDI published new recommendations, which were updated in 2010, for conducting clinical studies of dental restorative materials with detailed assessment criteria [20], [21]. Despite the increasingly wide use of FDI criteria, USPHS criteria were used in this study because they are still being used in the clinical researches more than FDI criteria [22]. Only outcomes that may be related to polymerisation stress effects on restorations were chosen for clinical evaluation in the current study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Behaviour and Marginal Sealing of Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations Using Light Amplified High-Intensity LEDs Curing: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Fahim

Mostafa

Abielhassan

et al. 2019

Open Access Maced J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Delivering sufficient intensity output of curing lights is mandatory to ensure optimum cure and clinical success of bulk-fill resin composite restorations and to avoid undesirable clinical outcomes. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of using light amplified high intensity LED curing on the clinical performance and marginal sealing of posterior bulk-fill resin composite restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was designed as a randomised, controlled, double-blind, Unicenter, parallel, two arms, superiority trial with 1:1 allocation ratio. Adult patients who required posterior tooth-coloured restorations were asked to participate in this trial. All participants signed written informed consent after being completely aware of the settings of the study. The participants who fulfilled the eligibility criteria were divided into two groups according to the type of light curing mode used. Adhesive compound proximal cavities were prepared. All restorative materials were applied according to the respective manufacturer’s instructions. Assessments of the restorations were done at baseline (one week after placement of the restoration), after 6 months and after 12 months using the modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. For quantitative assessment of the marginal sealing, resin replicas were analysed using scanning electron microscopy. Statistical analysis was done using Chi-square, Mann Whitney, independent t-test and dependent t-tests. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between the two groups for the tested clinical parameters along the study periods. For marginal analysis, there were no statistical differences between the intervention and control group at baseline and six months (p-value = 0.347 and 0.516) respectively. At 12 months the control group showed statistically significant higher percentages (p-value = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Light amplified high-intensity curing units have clinical performance comparable with the conventional LED.

show abstract

The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: A scoping review

Cited by 83 publications

References 38 publications

One‐year clinical evaluation of two high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer cements in class II restorations of primary molars

One‐year clinical evaluation of two high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer cements in class II restorations of primary molars

Clinical Performance of Direct Anterior Composite Restorations Using Esthetic Dual-Shade versus Polychromatic Natural Layering Technique: a split mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Clinical Behaviour and Marginal Sealing of Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations Using Light Amplified High-Intensity LEDs Curing: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About