Cácia Signori1, Mark Laske2, Fausto M Mendes3, Marie-Charlotte D N J M Huysmans2, Maximiliano S Cenci4, Niek J M Opdam2. 1. Federal University of Pelotas, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Gonçalves Chaves, 457, 5th floor, Pelotas, RS, 96015560, Brazil; Radboud University Medical Centre, College of Dental Sciences, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Ph van Leydenlaan 25, PO Box 9101, 6500HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: cacia.signori@ufpel.edu.br. 2. Radboud University Medical Centre, College of Dental Sciences, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Ph van Leydenlaan 25, PO Box 9101, 6500HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. University of São Paulo, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Lineu Prestes Avenue, 2227, Sao Paulo, SP, 05508000, Brazil. 4. Federal University of Pelotas, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Gonçalves Chaves, 457, 5th floor, Pelotas, RS, 96015560, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare decision-making based on bitewing analysis of restored proximal surfaces by general dental practitioners (GDPs) with diagnossis and clinical decisions made by experts in cariology and restorative dentistry. METHODS: This practice-based study used a database of 7 general dental practices. Posterior bitewing radiographs were selected from the electronic patient files of patients, and 770 cases of proximal restored surfaces were selected. Fifty percent of the cases which lead to the restorative decision, and the other half were cases decided for monitoring by the GDPs. Three experts performed radiographic assessment. The outcome variables were agreement of diagnosis and decision of treatment. Cohen's kappa statistic was used. RESULTS: For the experts, moderate to substantial intraexaminer agreement was observed for the diagnostic criteria, and kappa values of 0.77, 0.79, and 0.88 were obtained for each expert regarding the treatment assignment. Agreement between GDPs and the majority of experts for secondary caries varied between 67 and 83%. One hundred seventy-three out of 385 cases that were treated by GDPs were decided for monitoring by the experts, while 8 cases that were decided for monitoring by the GDPs were decided for treatment. The agreement between experts and GDPs was moderate for secondary caries detection, and fair for treatment decision. CONCLUSION: The GDPs tend to have a less conservative approach regarding the decision to intervene or not concerning the reassessment of restorations, showing moderate agreement with the experts for secondary caries detection and fair agreement regarding the treatment decision. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study highlights that GDPs tend to have a less conservative approach to the decision to intervene or not in posterior restorations, compared to experts in cariology and restorative dentistry. Efforts should be made to reduce these differences based on minimally invasive dentistry.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare decision-making based on bitewing analysis of restored proximal surfaces by general dental practitioners (GDPs) with diagnossis and clinical decisions made by experts in cariology and restorative dentistry. METHODS: This practice-based study used a database of 7 general dental practices. Posterior bitewing radiographs were selected from the electronic patient files of patients, and 770 cases of proximal restored surfaces were selected. Fifty percent of the cases which lead to the restorative decision, and the other half were cases decided for monitoring by the GDPs. Three experts performed radiographic assessment. The outcome variables were agreement of diagnosis and decision of treatment. Cohen's kappa statistic was used. RESULTS: For the experts, moderate to substantial intraexaminer agreement was observed for the diagnostic criteria, and kappa values of 0.77, 0.79, and 0.88 were obtained for each expert regarding the treatment assignment. Agreement between GDPs and the majority of experts for secondary caries varied between 67 and 83%. One hundred seventy-three out of 385 cases that were treated by GDPs were decided for monitoring by the experts, while 8 cases that were decided for monitoring by the GDPs were decided for treatment. The agreement between experts and GDPs was moderate for secondary caries detection, and fair for treatment decision. CONCLUSION: The GDPs tend to have a less conservative approach regarding the decision to intervene or not concerning the reassessment of restorations, showing moderate agreement with the experts for secondary caries detection and fair agreement regarding the treatment decision. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study highlights that GDPs tend to have a less conservative approach to the decision to intervene or not in posterior restorations, compared to experts in cariology and restorative dentistry. Efforts should be made to reduce these differences based on minimally invasive dentistry.