UNLABELLED: This in vitro study evaluated the validity of the decision to replace of a restoration based upon the radiolucent zone beneath a resin composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class II cavities were prepared on the approximal surfaces of 40 molars. The teeth were divided into four groups. Clearfil SE Bond, PQ1 or Single Bond was applied in the experimental groups. No bonding agent was used in the control group. Following the restorations, digital radiographs were obtained and independently evaluated by two oral radiologists and two specialists in restorative dentistry to determine the need for replacement. The coronal portions of the teeth were then sectioned and the interfaces between the restorations and cavity walls were examined using an optical light microscope. Possible adhesive pooling and voids were examined under a light microscope. Inter-examiner reliability was evaluated with the Cohen's kappa (kappa) test. Sensitivity, specificity and negative and positive predictive values were calculated. Kruskal-Wallis, followed by the Mann-Whitney U-test, determined differences among the pooling thicknesses of the different adhesives. RESULTS: Various sensitivity and specificity degrees were obtained from the groups in which different adhesive systems were used. The PQ1 adhesive system was the best for identifying well-adapted restorations with the highest true non-replacement diagnosis (TND = 0.70). Clearfil SE Bond had the highest false positive scores. Adhesive pooling was significantly different in the experimental groups of the current study (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Replacement decisions for a resin composite restoration based upon digital images frequently resulted in false-positive or negative decisions.
UNLABELLED: This in vitro study evaluated the validity of the decision to replace of a restoration based upon the radiolucent zone beneath a resin composite. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class II cavities were prepared on the approximal surfaces of 40 molars. The teeth were divided into four groups. Clearfil SE Bond, PQ1 or Single Bond was applied in the experimental groups. No bonding agent was used in the control group. Following the restorations, digital radiographs were obtained and independently evaluated by two oral radiologists and two specialists in restorative dentistry to determine the need for replacement. The coronal portions of the teeth were then sectioned and the interfaces between the restorations and cavity walls were examined using an optical light microscope. Possible adhesive pooling and voids were examined under a light microscope. Inter-examiner reliability was evaluated with the Cohen's kappa (kappa) test. Sensitivity, specificity and negative and positive predictive values were calculated. Kruskal-Wallis, followed by the Mann-Whitney U-test, determined differences among the pooling thicknesses of the different adhesives. RESULTS: Various sensitivity and specificity degrees were obtained from the groups in which different adhesive systems were used. The PQ1 adhesive system was the best for identifying well-adapted restorations with the highest true non-replacement diagnosis (TND = 0.70). Clearfil SE Bond had the highest false positive scores. Adhesive pooling was significantly different in the experimental groups of the current study (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Replacement decisions for a resin composite restoration based upon digital images frequently resulted in false-positive or negative decisions.
Authors: N K Kuper; F H van de Sande; N J M Opdam; E M Bronkhorst; J J de Soet; M S Cenci; M C D J N M Huysmans Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 6.116