Literature DB >> 18341239

Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98--FDI World Dental Federation study design (Part I) and criteria for evaluation (Part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns.

Reinhard Hickel1, Jean-François Roulet, Stephen Bayne, Siegward D Heintze, Ivar A Mjör, Mathilde Peters, Valentin Rousson, Ros Randall, Gottfried Schmalz, Martin Tyas, Guido Vanherle.   

Abstract

About 35 years ago, Ryge provided a practical approach to the evaluation of the clinical performance of restorative materials. This systematic approach was soon universally accepted. While that methodology has served us well, a large number of scientific methodologies and more detailed questions have arisen that require more rigor. Current restorative materials have vastly improved clinical performance, and any changes over time are not easily detected by the limited sensitivity of the Ryge criteria in short-term clinical investigations. However, the clinical evaluation of restorations not only involves the restorative material per se but also different operative techniques. For instance, a composite resin may show good longevity data when applied in conventional cavities but not in modified operative approaches. Insensitivity, combined with the continually evolving and nonstandard investigator modifications of the categories, scales, and reporting methods, has created a body of literature that is extremely difficult to interpret meaningfully. In many cases, the insensitivity of the original Ryge methods leads to misinterpretation as good clinical performance. While there are many good features of the original system, it is now time to move on to a more contemporary one. The current review approaches this challenge in two ways: (1) a proposal for a modern clinical testing protocol for controlled clinical trials, and (2) an in-depth discussion of relevant clinical evaluation parameters, providing 84 references that are primarily related to issues or problems for clinical research trials. Together, these two parts offer a standard for the clinical testing of restorative materials/procedures and provide significant guidance for research teams in the design and conduct of contemporary clinical trials. Part 1 of the review considers the recruitment of subjects, restorations per subject, clinical events, validity versus bias, legal and regulatory aspects, rationales for clinical trial designs, guidelines for design, randomization, number of subjects, characteristics of participants, clinical assessment, standards and calibration, categories for assessment, criteria for evaluation, and supplemental documentation. Part 2 of the review considers categories of assessment for esthetic evaluation, functional assessment, biological responses to restorative materials, and statistical analysis of results. The overall review represents a considerable effort to include a range of clinical research interests over the past years. As part of the recognition of the importance of these suggestions, the review is being published simultaneously in identical form in both the Journal of Adhesive Dentistry and Clinical Oral Investigations. Additionally, an extended abstract will be published in the International Dental Journal, giving a link to the web full version. This should help to introduce these considerations more quickly to the scientific community.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18341239

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adhes Dent        ISSN: 1461-5185            Impact factor:   2.359


  32 in total

1.  A randomized double-blind clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 1-year follow-up.

Authors:  Fábio Herrmann Coelho-De-Souza; Junara Cristina Camargo; Tiago Beskow; Matheus Dalmolin Balestrin; Celso Afonso Klein-Júnior; Flávio Fernando Demarco
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.698

2.  FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples.

Authors:  Reinhard Hickel; Arnd Peschke; Martin Tyas; Ivar Mjör; Stephen Bayne; Mathilde Peters; Karl-Anton Hiller; Ross Randall; Guido Vanherle; Siegward D Heintze
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  A 13-year clinical evaluation of two three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions.

Authors:  Marleen Peumans; Jan De Munck; Kirsten L Van Landuyt; Andre Poitevin; Paul Lambrechts; Bart Van Meerbeek
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Two-year clinical performance of two one-step self-etching adhesives in the restoration of cervical lesions.

Authors:  A Schattenberg; U Werling; B Willershausen; C-P Ernst
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: 8-year results.

Authors:  Roland Frankenberger; Christian Reinelt; Norbert Krämer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-03-23       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  A randomized clinical trial of class II composite restorations using direct and semidirect techniques.

Authors:  Carlos Rocha Gomes Torres; Mariane Cintra Mailart; Érica Crastechini; Fernanda Alves Feitosa; Stella Renato Machado Esteves; Rebeca Di Nicoló; Alessandra Bühler Borges
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-07-09       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  Comparison of laser- and bur-prepared class I cavities restored with two different low-shrinkage composite resins: a randomized, controlled 60-month clinical trial.

Authors:  O Z Fatma Dilsad; Esra Ergin; Nuray Attar; Sevil Gurgan
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Does a new formula have an input in the clinical success of posterior composite restorations? A chat study.

Authors:  Sevil Gurgan; Uzay Koc Vural; Zeynep Bilge Kutuk; Filiz Yalcin Cakir
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Influence of surface treatment on the performance of silorane-based composite resin in class I restorations: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Isabella Pereira Marques; Fabíola Belkiss Santos de Oliveira; João Gabriel Silva Souza; Raquel Conceição Ferreira; Claudia Silami Magalhães; Fabiana Mantovani Gomes França; Daniela Araújo Veloso Popoff
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 3.573

10.  The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement.

Authors:  Vu Thi Kieu Diem; Martin J Tyas; Hien C Ngo; Lam Hoai Phuong; Ngo Dong Khanh
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-07-07       Impact factor: 3.573

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.