Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs

IF 1.7 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Saudi Dental Journal Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.12.017
Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad , Nawaf AlGhamdi , Mohammed Alqahtani , Osama A. Alsulaiman , Ali Alshammari , Malik J. Farraj , Ahmed A. Alsulaiman
{"title":"Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs","authors":"Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad ,&nbsp;Nawaf AlGhamdi ,&nbsp;Mohammed Alqahtani ,&nbsp;Osama A. Alsulaiman ,&nbsp;Ali Alshammari ,&nbsp;Malik J. Farraj ,&nbsp;Ahmed A. Alsulaiman","doi":"10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.12.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To identify the potential factors that induce procedural errors during posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by dental students.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><p>This retrospective study evaluated 803 bitewing radiographs of posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by dental students at Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University. Atypical radiographic signs of failure were screened, and different patient-, operator-, and clinical-related factors were recorded. Chi-square test was used to examine the relationship between procedural errors and recorded factors. Stepwise adjusted logistic regression model was performed to identify predictors of procedural errors.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The most observed errors were internal gaps at the bonding interface and internal voids. Molars had 0.39 the risk of internal voids (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39; confidence interval [CI] = 0.25<strong>–</strong>0.60; <em>P</em> = &lt;0.0001), 0.41 the risk of sharp angle (OR = 0.41; CI = 0.24<strong>–</strong>0.68; <em>P</em> = &lt;0.001), and 0.57 the risk of open contact (OR = 0.57; CI = 0.34<strong>–</strong>0.97; <em>P</em> = 0.04) compared to premolars. Those who were &gt;40 years of age had 1.79 the risk of overhang compared to younger patients (OR = 1.79; CI = 1.04<strong>–</strong>3.11; <em>P</em> = &lt;0.04). First molars and premolars had 0.64 the risk of overhang compared to second molars and premolars (OR = 0.64; CI = 0.41<strong>–</strong>1.00; <em>P</em> = 0.04). Junior students had 1.97 the risk of internal gap compared to their senior counterparts (OR = 1.97; CI = 1.20<strong>–</strong>3.21; <em>P</em> = 0.008). Mesial restorations had 0.38 the risk of external gap compared to mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) restorations (OR = 0.38; CI = 0.19<strong>–</strong>0.78; <em>P</em> = 0.003). Restorations with a margin coronal to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) had 0.44 the risk of external gap compared to those restorations with a margin apical to the CEJ (OR = 0.44; CI = 0.29<strong>–</strong>0.66; <em>P</em> = &lt;0.0001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our findings suggested a higher incidence of procedural errors in restoring premolars and MOD cavity preparations. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the comprehensiveness of laboratory training and expose students to diverse clinical scenarios and various techniques.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47246,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Dental Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S101390522300281X/pdfft?md5=719074fb39b4e700ebee278e3afd991e&pid=1-s2.0-S101390522300281X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S101390522300281X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To identify the potential factors that induce procedural errors during posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by dental students.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study evaluated 803 bitewing radiographs of posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by dental students at Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University. Atypical radiographic signs of failure were screened, and different patient-, operator-, and clinical-related factors were recorded. Chi-square test was used to examine the relationship between procedural errors and recorded factors. Stepwise adjusted logistic regression model was performed to identify predictors of procedural errors.

Results

The most observed errors were internal gaps at the bonding interface and internal voids. Molars had 0.39 the risk of internal voids (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39; confidence interval [CI] = 0.250.60; P = <0.0001), 0.41 the risk of sharp angle (OR = 0.41; CI = 0.240.68; P = <0.001), and 0.57 the risk of open contact (OR = 0.57; CI = 0.340.97; P = 0.04) compared to premolars. Those who were >40 years of age had 1.79 the risk of overhang compared to younger patients (OR = 1.79; CI = 1.043.11; P = <0.04). First molars and premolars had 0.64 the risk of overhang compared to second molars and premolars (OR = 0.64; CI = 0.411.00; P = 0.04). Junior students had 1.97 the risk of internal gap compared to their senior counterparts (OR = 1.97; CI = 1.203.21; P = 0.008). Mesial restorations had 0.38 the risk of external gap compared to mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) restorations (OR = 0.38; CI = 0.190.78; P = 0.003). Restorations with a margin coronal to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) had 0.44 the risk of external gap compared to those restorations with a margin apical to the CEJ (OR = 0.44; CI = 0.290.66; P = <0.0001).

Conclusion

Our findings suggested a higher incidence of procedural errors in restoring premolars and MOD cavity preparations. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the comprehensiveness of laboratory training and expose students to diverse clinical scenarios and various techniques.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用咬翼X光片预测二类树脂复合修复体的程序错误
材料与方法这项回顾性研究评估了伊玛目-阿卜杜勒拉赫曼-本-费萨尔大学牙科学生进行的 803 例后近端树脂复合修复体的咬翼X光片。研究筛选了非典型的失败影像学征象,并记录了不同的患者、操作者和临床相关因素。采用卡方检验法检验程序错误与记录因素之间的关系。结果 观察到最多的错误是粘接界面的内部间隙和内部空隙。与前磨牙相比,磨牙出现内空隙的风险为 0.39(几率比 [OR] = 0.39;置信区间 [CI] = 0.25-0.60;P = 0.0001),出现锐角的风险为 0.41(OR = 0.41;CI = 0.24-0.68;P = 0.001),出现开放接触的风险为 0.57(OR = 0.57;CI = 0.34-0.97;P = 0.04)。与年轻患者相比,40 岁患者发生悬突的风险为 1.79(OR = 1.79;CI = 1.04-3.11;P = 0.04)。与第二臼齿和前臼齿相比,第一臼齿和前臼齿的悬雍垂风险为 0.64(OR = 0.64;CI = 0.41-1.00;P = 0.04)。与高年级学生相比,低年级学生出现内间隙的风险为 1.97(OR = 1.97;CI = 1.20-3.21;P = 0.008)。中间修复体与中间-咬合-远端(MOD)修复体相比,出现外部间隙的风险为0.38(OR = 0.38; CI = 0.19-0.78; P = 0.003)。结论我们的研究结果表明,在修复前磨牙和MOD洞预备时,程序错误的发生率较高。因此,加强实验室培训的全面性,让学生接触不同的临床场景和各种技术至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Saudi Dental Journal
Saudi Dental Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: Saudi Dental Journal is an English language, peer-reviewed scholarly publication in the area of dentistry. Saudi Dental Journal publishes original research and reviews on, but not limited to: • dental disease • clinical trials • dental equipment • new and experimental techniques • epidemiology and oral health • restorative dentistry • periodontology • endodontology • prosthodontics • paediatric dentistry • orthodontics and dental education Saudi Dental Journal is the official publication of the Saudi Dental Society and is published by King Saud University in collaboration with Elsevier and is edited by an international group of eminent researchers.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board What is the impact of patient attributes, implant characteristics, surgical techniques, and placement location on the success of orthodontic mini-implants in young adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis The effect of derum (bark of Juglans regia tree) extract on oral mucosa: An in vivo study based on epithelial atypia in rabbit model Impact of proton pump inhibitors on periodontal health – A systematic review Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1