Author:
Mesinger Sabine,Heck Katrin,Crispin Alexander,Frankenberger Roland,Cadenaro Milena,Burgess John,Peschke Arnd,Heintze Siegward D.,Loomans Bas,Opdam Niek,Hickel Reinhard,Kühnisch Jan
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
The purpose of this in vitro reliability study was to determine the intra- and inter-examiner agreement of the revised FDI criteria including the categories “fracture of material and retention” (F1) and “caries at restoration margin” (B1).
Materials and methods
Forty-nine photographs of direct tooth-coloured posterior (n = 25) and anterior (n = 24) restorations with common deficiencies were included. Ten dental experts repeated the assessment in three blinded rounds. Later, the experts re-evaluated together all photographs and agreed on a reference standard. Statistical analysis included the calculation of Cohen’s (Cκ), Fleiss’ (Fκ), and weighted Kappa (wκ), the development of a logistic regression with a backward elimination model and Bland/Altman plots.
Results
Intra- and inter-examiner reliability exhibited mostly moderate to substantial Cκ, Fκ, and wκ values for posterior restorations (e.g. Intra: F1 Cκ = 0.57, wκ = 0.74; B1 Cκ = 0.57, wκ = 0.73/Inter F1 Fκ = 0.32, wκ = 0.53; B1 Fκ = 0.41, wκ = 0.64) and anterior restorations (e.g. Intra F1 Cκ = 0.63, wκ = 0.76; B1 Cκ = 0.48, wκ = 0.68/Inter F1 Fκ = 0.42, wκ = 0.57; B1 Fκ = 0.40, wκ = 0.51). Logistic regression analyses revealed significant differences between the evaluation rounds, examiners, categories, and tooth type. Both the intra- and inter-examiner reliability increased along with the evaluation rounds. The overall agreement was higher for anterior restorations compared to posterior restorations.
Conclusions
The overall reliability of the revised FDI criteria set was found to be moderate to substantial.
Clinical relevance
If properly trained, the revised FDI criteria set are a valid tool to evaluate direct and indirect restorations in a standardized way. However, training and calibration are needed to ensure reliable application.
Funder
Universitätsklinik München
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference23 articles.
1. Cvar JF (1971) Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 9(4):215–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z
2. Bayne S, Schmalz G (2005) Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 9:109–214
3. Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30(4):347–358
4. Marquillier T, Domejean S, Le Clerc J, Chemla F, Gritsch K, Maurin JC, Millet P, Perard M, Grosgogeat B, Dursun E (2018) The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: a scoping review. J Dent 68:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.007
5. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjor IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G (2007) 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. J Adhes Dent 9(Suppl 1):121–147
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献