Organization for Caries Research-European Federation of Conservative Dentistry Consensus Report on Clinical Recommendations for Caries Diagnosis Paper II: Caries Lesion Activity and Progression Assessment.

INTRODUCTION: This consensus paper provides recommendations for oral health professionals on why and how to assess caries activity and progression with special respect to the site of a lesion. METHODS: An expert panel was nominated by the executive councils of the European Organization for Caries Research (ORCA) and the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD). The steering committee built three working groups that were asked to provide recommendations on (1) caries detection and diagnostic methods, (2) caries activity and progression assessment, and (3) obtain individualized caries diagnoses. The experts of work group 2 phrased and agreed on provisional general and specific recommendations on caries lesion activity and progression, based on a review of the current literature. These recommendations were then discussed and refined in a consensus workshop followed by an anonymous Delphi survey to determine the agreement on each recommendation. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed on general (n = 7) and specific recommendations (n = 6). The specific recommendations cover coronal caries on pits and fissures, smooth surfaces, proximal surfaces, as well as root caries and secondary caries/caries adjacent to restorations and sealants. 3/13 recommendations yielded perfect agreement. CONCLUSION: The most suitable method for lesion activity assessment is the visual-tactile method. No single clinical characteristic is indicative of lesion activity; instead, lesion activity assessment is based on assessing and weighing several clinical signs. The recall intervals for visual and radiographic examination need to be adjusted to the presence of active caries lesions and recent caries progression rates. Modifications should be based on individual patient characteristics.

ORCA-EFCD consensus report on clinical recommendation for caries diagnosis. Paper I: caries lesion detection and depth assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present consensus paper was to provide recommendations for clinical practice considering the use of visual examination, dental radiography and adjunct methods for primary caries detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The executive councils of the European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA) and the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) nominated ten experts each to join the expert panel. The steering committee formed three work groups that were asked to provide recommendations on (1) caries detection and diagnostic methods, (2) caries activity assessment and (3) forming individualised caries diagnoses. The experts responsible for "caries detection and diagnostic methods" searched and evaluated the relevant literature, drafted this manuscript and made provisional consensus recommendations. These recommendations were discussed and refined during the structured process in the whole work group. Finally, the agreement for each recommendation was determined using an anonymous Delphi survey. RESULTS: Recommendations (N = 8) were approved and agreed upon by the whole expert panel: visual examination (N = 3), dental radiography (N = 3) and additional diagnostic methods (N = 2). While the quality of evidence was found to be heterogeneous, all recommendations were agreed upon by the expert panel. CONCLUSION: Visual examination is recommended as the first-choice method for the detection and assessment of caries lesions on accessible surfaces. Intraoral radiography, preferably bitewing, is recommended as an additional method. Adjunct, non-ionising radiation methods might also be useful in certain clinical situations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The expert panel merged evidence from the scientific literature with practical considerations and provided recommendations for their use in daily dental practice.

RoBDEMAT: A risk of bias tool and guideline to support reporting of pre-clinical dental materials research and assessment of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a risk of bias tool for pre-clinical dental materials research studies that aims to support reporting of future investigations and improve assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS: A four-stage process following EQUATOR network recommendations was followed, which included project launch, literature review, Delphi process and the tool finalization. With the support of the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) and the Dental Materials Group of the International Association for Dental Research (DMG-IADR), a total of 26 expert stakeholders were included in the development and Delphi vote of the initial proposal. The proposal was built using data gathered from the literature review stage. During this stage, recent systematic reviews featuring dental materials research, and risk of bias tools found in the literature were comprehensively scanned for bias sources. The experts thus reached a consensus for the items, domains and judgement related to the tool, allowing a detailed guide for each item and corresponding signalling questions. RESULTS: The tool features nine items in total, spread between 4 domains, pertaining to the following types of bias: bias related to planning and allocation (D1), specimen preparation (D2), outcome assessment (D3) and data treatment and outcome reporting (D4). RoBDEMAT, as presented, features signalling questions and a guide that can be used for RoB judgement. Its use as a checklist is preferred over a final summary score. CONCLUSION: RoBDEMAT is the first risk of bias tool for pre-clinical dental materials research, supported and developed by a broad group of expert stakeholders in the field, validating its future use. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This new tool will contribute the study field by improving the scientific quality and rigour of dental materials research studies and their systematic reviews. Such studies are the foundation and support of future clinical research and evidence-based decisions.

Validation of assessment of intraoral digital photography for evaluation of dental restorations in clinical research.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of assessment of intraoral digital photography in the evaluation of dental restorations. METHODS: Intraoral photographs of anterior and posterior restorations were classified based on FDI criteria according to the need for intervention: no intervention, repair and replacement. Evaluations were performed by an experienced expert in restorative dentistry (gold standard evaluator) and 3 trained dentists (consensus). The clinical inspection was the reference standard method. The prevalence of failures was explored. Cohen's kappa statistic was used. Validity was accessed by sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio and predictives values. RESULTS: Higher prevalence of failed restorations intervention was identified by the intraoral photography (17.7%) in comparison to the clinical evaluation (14.1%). Moderate agreement in the diagnosis of total failures was shown between the methods for the gold standard evaluator (kappa = 0.51) and consensus of evaluators (kappa = 0.53). Gold standard evaluator and consensus showed substantial and moderate agreement for posterior restorations (kappa = 0.61; 0.59), and fair and moderate agreement for anterior restorations (kappa = 0.36; 0.43), respectively. The accuracy was 84.8% in the assessment by intraoral photographs. Sensitivity and specificity values of 87.5% and 89.3% were found. CONCLUSIONS: Under the limits of this study, the assessment of digital photography performed by intraoral camera is an indirect diagnostic method valid for the evaluation of dental restorations, mainly in posterior teeth. This method should be employed taking into account the higher detection of defects provided by the images, which are not always clinically relevant.

Higher experience of caries and lower income trajectory influence the quality of restorations: A multilevel analysis in a birth cohort.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the quality of posterior restorations (amalgam or composite) placed in adults from a birth cohort and its association with clinical and socioeconomic determinants experienced during their life course. METHODS: A representative sample (n=539) of all 5914 births occurring in Pelotas (Brazil) in 1982 was prospectively investigated. Quality of posterior restorations (satisfactory or unsatisfactory) was assessed at 31 yrs-old, using modified USPHS criteria. Trained and calibrated dentists performed clinical examination. Explanatory variables included demographic and socioeconomic, oral health and dental service utilization patterns during the life course. Tooth related variables (type of tooth, material, size of cavity) were also analyzed. Untreated caries and socioeconomic status were assessed by group-based trajectories analyses. Multilevel Regression models were used to determine factors associated with restoration outcomes. RESULTS: In total 2123 restorations (53% composite) were evaluated of which 107 (5%) were assessed as failed. The main reasons for failure were tooth/restoration fracture (50.5%) and secondary caries (30.7%). Failures in posterior restorations showed a significant association with socioeconomic aspects (lower tertile of income at age 30 - prevalence ratio (PR) 2.21 [95% CI 1.19-4.09]), clinical variables (trajectory of higher untreated caries - PR 2.11 [95% CI 1.23-3.61]) and also with tooth-related factors (Restorations involving three or more surfaces - PR 5.51 [95% CI 3.30-9.19]) after adjustment for each other. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, although tooth-related variables have an important role in restoration longevity, patient-related factors, such as socioeconomic variables and untreated caries are also associated with failure and should be taken into account when evaluating longevity of posterior restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This was the first study assessing long-term trajectory of untreated caries, showing an association between higher experience of caries during the life-course and unsatisfactory restorations. The findings suggest that individual related factors should be considered when planning treatment and in future research evaluating the longevity of dental restorations.

Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials.

Resin composites have become the first choice for direct posterior restorations and are increasingly popular among clinicians and patients. Meanwhile, a number of clinical reports in the literature have discussed the durability of these restorations over long periods. In this review, we have searched the dental literature looking for clinical trials investigating posterior composite restorations over periods of at least 5 years of follow-up published between 1996 and 2011. The search resulted in 34 selected studies. 90% of the clinical studies indicated that annual failure rates between 1% and 3% can be achieved with Class I and II posterior composite restorations depending on several factors such as tooth type and location, operator, and socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral elements. The material properties showed a minor effect on longevity. The main reasons for failure in the long term are secondary caries, related to the individual caries risk, and fracture, related to the presence of a lining or the strength of the material used as well as patient factors such as bruxism. Repair is a viable alternative to replacement, and it can increase significantly the lifetime of restorations. As observed in the literature reviewed, a long survival rate for posterior composite restorations can be expected provided that patient, operator and materials factors are taken into account when the restorations are performed.