两种评估修复体周围龋的视觉标准的准确性:一项延迟型横断面研究。

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Caries Research Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1159/000528730
Juliana Lays Stolfo Uehara, Cácia Signori, Vitor Henrique Digmayer Romero, Fausto Medeiros Mendes, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci
{"title":"两种评估修复体周围龋的视觉标准的准确性:一项延迟型横断面研究。","authors":"Juliana Lays Stolfo Uehara,&nbsp;Cácia Signori,&nbsp;Vitor Henrique Digmayer Romero,&nbsp;Fausto Medeiros Mendes,&nbsp;Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci","doi":"10.1159/000528730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare the performance of two visual criteria used for the detection of caries around restorations in permanent teeth. In this delayed-type cross-sectional study, the study sample was randomly allocated to one of two visual criteria for the assessment of restorations as follows: (a) International Dental Federation (FDI) criteria, considers marginal staining, marginal adaptation, and caries recurrence and (b) Caries Associated with Restorations or Sealants (CARS) criteria, defined by the International Caries Classification and Management System. A calibrated examiner assessed the restorations using two reference standards as follows: (i) for restorations requiring operative interventions (repair/replacement), the restoration was partially or totally removed and the presence or absence of carious tissue was assessed; and (ii) for restorations requiring nonoperative intervention, follow-up for a period of 1 year was recommended to allow identification of the presence of new lesions not detected at baseline. The sensitivity, specificity, area under receiver operating characteristic curve (Az), and accuracy of the criteria were assessed. The study included 305 restorations. The FDI marginal staining parameter had the lowest Az value (Az = 0.501), while similar sensitivity was observed between the CARS (62.0%), FDI presence of caries (65.0%), and FDI marginal adaptation (74.0%) parameters. CARS exhibited the highest specificity (88.3%) and accuracy (85.6%). The CARS criteria exhibited better specificity and accuracy in detecting caries around restorations, followed by the FDI criteria for caries recurrence and marginal adaptation. Considering marginal staining or combining multiple marginal features to assess secondary caries resulted in an increased risk of false-positive outcomes and overtreatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":9620,"journal":{"name":"Caries Research","volume":"57 1","pages":"12-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Two Visual Criteria for the Assessment of Caries around Restorations: A Delayed-Type Cross-Sectional Study.\",\"authors\":\"Juliana Lays Stolfo Uehara,&nbsp;Cácia Signori,&nbsp;Vitor Henrique Digmayer Romero,&nbsp;Fausto Medeiros Mendes,&nbsp;Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000528730\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this study was to compare the performance of two visual criteria used for the detection of caries around restorations in permanent teeth. In this delayed-type cross-sectional study, the study sample was randomly allocated to one of two visual criteria for the assessment of restorations as follows: (a) International Dental Federation (FDI) criteria, considers marginal staining, marginal adaptation, and caries recurrence and (b) Caries Associated with Restorations or Sealants (CARS) criteria, defined by the International Caries Classification and Management System. A calibrated examiner assessed the restorations using two reference standards as follows: (i) for restorations requiring operative interventions (repair/replacement), the restoration was partially or totally removed and the presence or absence of carious tissue was assessed; and (ii) for restorations requiring nonoperative intervention, follow-up for a period of 1 year was recommended to allow identification of the presence of new lesions not detected at baseline. The sensitivity, specificity, area under receiver operating characteristic curve (Az), and accuracy of the criteria were assessed. The study included 305 restorations. The FDI marginal staining parameter had the lowest Az value (Az = 0.501), while similar sensitivity was observed between the CARS (62.0%), FDI presence of caries (65.0%), and FDI marginal adaptation (74.0%) parameters. CARS exhibited the highest specificity (88.3%) and accuracy (85.6%). The CARS criteria exhibited better specificity and accuracy in detecting caries around restorations, followed by the FDI criteria for caries recurrence and marginal adaptation. Considering marginal staining or combining multiple marginal features to assess secondary caries resulted in an increased risk of false-positive outcomes and overtreatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Caries Research\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"12-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Caries Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000528730\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Caries Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000528730","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较用于检测恒牙修复体周围龋的两种视觉标准的性能。在这项延迟型横截面研究中,研究样本被随机分配到以下两种评估修复体的视觉标准之一:(a)国际牙科联合会(FDI)标准,考虑边缘染色、边缘适应和龋齿复发;(b)与修复体或密封剂相关的龋齿(CARS)标准,由国际龋齿分类和管理系统定义。经过校准的审核员使用以下两个参考标准评估修复体:(i)对于需要手术干预(修复/置换)的修复体,修复体部分或全部被移除,并评估是否存在龋齿组织;(ii)对于需要非手术干预的修复,建议随访1年,以确定基线时未发现的新病变的存在。评估标准的敏感性、特异性、受试者工作特征曲线下面积(Az)和准确性。这项研究包括305处修复。FDI边缘染色参数的Az值最低(Az = 0.501),而CARS(62.0%)、FDI是否存在龋齿(65.0%)和FDI边缘适应(74.0%)参数的敏感性相似。CARS具有最高的特异性(88.3%)和准确性(85.6%)。CARS标准在检测修复体周围龋齿方面具有更好的特异性和准确性,其次是FDI标准在检测龋齿复发和边缘适应方面。考虑边缘染色或结合多种边缘特征来评估继发性龋齿会增加假阳性结果和过度治疗的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Accuracy of Two Visual Criteria for the Assessment of Caries around Restorations: A Delayed-Type Cross-Sectional Study.

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of two visual criteria used for the detection of caries around restorations in permanent teeth. In this delayed-type cross-sectional study, the study sample was randomly allocated to one of two visual criteria for the assessment of restorations as follows: (a) International Dental Federation (FDI) criteria, considers marginal staining, marginal adaptation, and caries recurrence and (b) Caries Associated with Restorations or Sealants (CARS) criteria, defined by the International Caries Classification and Management System. A calibrated examiner assessed the restorations using two reference standards as follows: (i) for restorations requiring operative interventions (repair/replacement), the restoration was partially or totally removed and the presence or absence of carious tissue was assessed; and (ii) for restorations requiring nonoperative intervention, follow-up for a period of 1 year was recommended to allow identification of the presence of new lesions not detected at baseline. The sensitivity, specificity, area under receiver operating characteristic curve (Az), and accuracy of the criteria were assessed. The study included 305 restorations. The FDI marginal staining parameter had the lowest Az value (Az = 0.501), while similar sensitivity was observed between the CARS (62.0%), FDI presence of caries (65.0%), and FDI marginal adaptation (74.0%) parameters. CARS exhibited the highest specificity (88.3%) and accuracy (85.6%). The CARS criteria exhibited better specificity and accuracy in detecting caries around restorations, followed by the FDI criteria for caries recurrence and marginal adaptation. Considering marginal staining or combining multiple marginal features to assess secondary caries resulted in an increased risk of false-positive outcomes and overtreatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Caries Research
Caries Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
34
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Caries Research'' publishes epidemiological, clinical and laboratory studies in dental caries, erosion and related dental diseases. Some studies build on the considerable advances already made in caries prevention, e.g. through fluoride application. Some aim to improve understanding of the increasingly important problem of dental erosion and the associated tooth wear process. Others monitor the changing pattern of caries in different populations, explore improved methods of diagnosis or evaluate methods of prevention or treatment. The broad coverage of current research has given the journal an international reputation as an indispensable source for both basic scientists and clinicians engaged in understanding, investigating and preventing dental disease.
期刊最新文献
Selective outcome reporting bias in randomized controlled trials on dental caries in children and adolescents: A meta-research study. Is poor self-rated health associated with higher caries experience in adults? The HUNT4 Oral Health Study. Concentration and Stability of Fluoride Chemically Available in Charcoal-Containing Toothpastes. Dentists' Treatment Decisions Concerning Restorations in Adult Patients in North Norway: A Cross-Sectional Tromsø 7 Study. Dietary Carbohydrates Modulate Streptococcus mutans Adherence and Bacterial Proteome.
×
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