Needs for re-intervention on restored teeth in adults: a practice-based study

Decup, Franck; Dantony, Emmanuelle; Chevalier, Charlène; David, Alexandra; Garyga, Valentin; Tohmé, Marie; Gueyffier, François; Nony, Patrice; Maucort‐Boulch, Delphine; Grosgogeat, Brigitte

doi:10.1007/s00784-021-04058-5

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… †Satisfactory refers to scores 1, 2 and 3; ‡ Unsatisfactory refers to scores 4 and 5 on FDI criteria. *P-Value statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) refers to the comparison between patient´s view FDI criterion reference value 10 and each esthetic 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , functional 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and biological FDI criteria 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , coming from dentists assessment. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When evaluating direct anterior dental restorations, patients’ opinions regarding satisfaction and dissatisfaction are worth examining, since the reasons and approaches for repairing or replacing dental restorations can be indirectly related to esthetic or functional complaints 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In clinical studies in Restorative Dentistry, patient-reported outcomes are still briefly explored. The World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria 3 have made an effort to include patients’ opinions as a criterion, a fact that has added to their value 2 , 4 . In the “patient’s view” criterion, the patient needs to score his/her dental restoration on a 1-5 scale, as does the dentist.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the patient’s report is possibly a subjective criterion when evaluating a dental restoration 3 , ignoring its relevance in the clinical evaluation of esthetic restorations does not help clinicians when going through the clinical decision-making process. Knowledge of the patient’s perceptions and values can be relevant in treatment decision-making, especially considering patient satisfaction 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . Additionally, it is important to understand possible discrepancies among clinician’s decision-making based on biological, functional, and esthetic criteria and patient’s demands, especially considering its implications in the repetitive restorative circle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Patients´ satisfaction concerning direct anterior dental restoration

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to observe patients’ satisfaction with their in-service direct anterior dental restorations and to compare it with clinical evaluation using FDI (Federation Dental International) criteria. Patients scored their own anterior dental restorations regarding satisfaction (satisfactory /dissatisfactory). If dissatisfaction was mentioned, then, they would be interviewed about the complaint. In the same session, the dental restorations were clinically evaluated by two dentists using FDI criteria (1-5 score) concerning esthetic, functional, and biological domains. Descriptive statistics were used for frequencies of scores attributed by patients and clinicians. In order to compare patients’ to clinicians’ frequencies, the Chi-square test was applied (p ≤ 0.05). A total of 106 restorations were evaluated by patients and clinicians. Patients reported 52.8% of restorations satisfactory and 47.8% dissatisfactory. Overall, clinicians reported the same restorations as 82,3% satisfactory and 17,6% dissatisfactory. Patients’ most frequent complaints referred to color, followed by anatomical form, fracture of material and retention, and approximal anatomical form. Comparing patients’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction rates to clinicians’ evaluation per criteria, there was no difference regarding esthetics. The frequency of dissatisfactory restorations by clinicians was significantly lower when functional and biological properties were compared with patients’ opinions. Direct anterior dental restorations were more frequently reported as satisfactory by patients and clinicians, being the main complaints related to esthetic issues. When clinicians and patients’ evaluations were compared, it was observed that the frequencies of satisfactory restoration by patients and clinicians were similar regarding esthetic properties, and significantly different regarding functional and biological properties.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patients´ satisfaction concerning direct anterior dental restoration

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An observational multicentric cross-sectional study (RESTO DATA, NTC03854525) (Decup et al 2021) (6) was carried out in several French hospital dental departments. From March 2019 to September 2020, 422 new patients seeking routine (not emergency) dental care have been included in 13 hospital dental departments by 41 investigators.…”

Section: Study Setting and Inclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Endodontic versus coronal treatment quality on the periapical status

Pérard

Decup

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: Coronal sealing, quality of root canal treatment, and periapical status have been widely investigated. However, which of two practitioner-dependent determinants (endodontic treatment or coronal restoration) is the most important to the periapical status remains scientifically debated. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the relative importance of the technical qualities of root canal filling and marginal sealing of the coronal restoration on the periapical status and screened previously published data. METHODS: A retrospective study collected and analyzed clinical and radiological data on 246 endodontically-treated teeth. Six paired comparisons were carried out between groups combining good or poor endodontic treatment (G/P E) with good or poor coronal restoration G/P R). Results are displayed through forest plots of odds ratios for each comparison.RESULTS: In the retrospective study, the endodontic determinant seems to be more important than the restorative one (37.5% of diseased periapical status with GE versus 41.2% with PE). In the systematic review, odds ratio analyses showed that group GE+GR had 1.7 less periapical lesions than group PE+GR and 2.7 less lesions that group PE+PR. Belonging to group PE+PR was found significantly associated with ‘diseased’ periapical status. CONCLUSION: The retrospective study and the systematic review agreed that endodontic treatment (precisely, root canal filling) was found more important than coronal restoration (precisely, marginal sealing) for healthy periapical tissue.

show abstract