Franck Decup1,2, Emmanuelle Dantony3,4,5,6, Charlène Chevalier3,7,8,9, Alexandra David3,7,10,8,9, Valentin Garyga3,4,10,9, Marie Tohmé3,4,10,9, François Gueyffier6,7,11, Patrice Nony6,7,11, Delphine Maucort-Boulch3,4,5,6, Brigitte Grosgogeat12,13,14,15,16. 1. Service de Médecine Bucco-Dentaire, Hôpital Charles Foix, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Ivry sur Seine, France. 2. Université de Paris, UR 2496, Pathologies, Imagerie Et Biothérapie Orofaciales, Montrouge, France. 3. Université de Lyon, Lyon, France. 4. Université Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France. 5. Service de Biostatistique-Bioinformatique, Pôle Santé Publique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France. 6. Équipe Biostatistique-Santé, Laboratoire de Biométrie Et Biologie Évolutive, CNRS UMR 5558, Villeurbanne, France. 7. Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France. 8. Laboratoire Des Multimatériaux Et Des Interfaces, UMR CNRS 5615, Lyon, France. 9. Faculté d'odontologie, 11 rue Guillaume Paradin, 69008, Lyon, France. 10. Service d'odontologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France. 11. Hôpital Cardiologique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Bron, France. 12. Université de Lyon, Lyon, France. brigitte.grosgogeat@univ-lyon1.fr. 13. Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France. brigitte.grosgogeat@univ-lyon1.fr. 14. Service d'odontologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France. brigitte.grosgogeat@univ-lyon1.fr. 15. Laboratoire Des Multimatériaux Et Des Interfaces, UMR CNRS 5615, Lyon, France. brigitte.grosgogeat@univ-lyon1.fr. 16. Faculté d'odontologie, 11 rue Guillaume Paradin, 69008, Lyon, France. brigitte.grosgogeat@univ-lyon1.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the need for re-intervention on dental coronal restorations in adults seen in a network of general dental practitioners (ReCOL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study involved 40 practitioners and 400 patients. Coronal restoration failures (needing re-intervention for unsatisfactory outcomes) were assessed with a simplified rating scale of seven criteria from the FDI World Dental Federation. The oral health status, the risk factors, and Oral Health Impact Profile-14 were also examined. Previous restoration characteristics (extent, technique, material) were analyzed according to the need for re-intervention (yes/no), the age group, and the risk profile. Qualitative variables were compared between "re-intervention" and "no re-intervention" group using Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The need for re-intervention was estimated at 74% (95% CI: 70; 79); it increased with age (49 to 90%), unfavorable risk profile (82 vs. 62%), and extent of the filling (32, 39, 44, and 44% on 1, 2, 3 surfaces, and crowns, respectively). More posterior than anterior teeth were restored (median per patient: 6 vs. 1) or needed re-intervention (median per patient: 1 vs. 0). CONCLUSIONS: The needs for re-intervention in adults are still high within a context of ever-changing materials and techniques, simplified and rationalized decision-makings, and demands for patient involvement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Meeting these needs requires the following: (i) consensus definitions and assessment methods for "failure" and (ii) reliable feedbacks on materials, procedures, and satisfaction. Building large and detailed databases fed by networks of motivated practitioners will help analyzing complex success/failure data by artificial intelligence and guiding treatment and research.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the need for re-intervention on dental coronal restorations in adults seen in a network of general dental practitioners (ReCOL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study involved 40 practitioners and 400 patients. Coronal restoration failures (needing re-intervention for unsatisfactory outcomes) were assessed with a simplified rating scale of seven criteria from the FDI World Dental Federation. The oral health status, the risk factors, and Oral Health Impact Profile-14 were also examined. Previous restoration characteristics (extent, technique, material) were analyzed according to the need for re-intervention (yes/no), the age group, and the risk profile. Qualitative variables were compared between "re-intervention" and "no re-intervention" group using Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The need for re-intervention was estimated at 74% (95% CI: 70; 79); it increased with age (49 to 90%), unfavorable risk profile (82 vs. 62%), and extent of the filling (32, 39, 44, and 44% on 1, 2, 3 surfaces, and crowns, respectively). More posterior than anterior teeth were restored (median per patient: 6 vs. 1) or needed re-intervention (median per patient: 1 vs. 0). CONCLUSIONS: The needs for re-intervention in adults are still high within a context of ever-changing materials and techniques, simplified and rationalized decision-makings, and demands for patient involvement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Meeting these needs requires the following: (i) consensus definitions and assessment methods for "failure" and (ii) reliable feedbacks on materials, procedures, and satisfaction. Building large and detailed databases fed by networks of motivated practitioners will help analyzing complex success/failure data by artificial intelligence and guiding treatment and research.
Authors: Mark Laske; Niek J M Opdam; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Jozé C C Braspenning; Marie Charlotte D N J M Huysmans Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Nhf Wilson; C D Lynch; P A Brunton; R Hickel; H Meyer-Lueckel; S Gurgan; U Pallesen; A C Shearer; Z Tarle; E Cotti; G Vanherle; N Opdam Journal: Oper Dent Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.440
Authors: Marco A Peres; Lorna M D Macpherson; Robert J Weyant; Blánaid Daly; Renato Venturelli; Manu R Mathur; Stefan Listl; Roger Keller Celeste; Carol C Guarnizo-Herreño; Cristin Kearns; Habib Benzian; Paul Allison; Richard G Watt Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-07-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Valeria V Gordan; Joseph L Riley; D Brad Rindal; Vibeke Qvist; Jeffrey L Fellows; Deborah A Dilbone; Solomon G Brotman; Gregg H Gilbert Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.634
Authors: Mark Laske; Niek J M Opdam; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Jozé C C Braspenning; Marie Charlotte D N J M Huysmans Journal: J Dent Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Stefania Martignon; Nigel B Pitts; Guy Goffin; Marco Mazevet; Gail V A Douglas; J Tim Newton; Svante Twetman; Christopher Deery; Sophie Doméjean; Anahita Jablonski-Momeni; Avijit Banerjee; Justine Kolker; David Ricketts; Ruth M Santamaria Journal: Br Dent J Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 1.626