CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE

Gül Yıldız Telatar; Fatih Bedir

doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.649110

CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE

Abstract

Abstract

Aim: The quality of restorations varies depending on many factors such as type of material and caries risk. The objective of this research was to investigate the quality of dental restorations by using the Modified United States Public Health Service criteria (USPHS/Ryge) in adults with different caries risk profile.

Materials and methods: A total of 175 patients and their 642 restorations were divided into low(DMFT≤5), moderate(5>DMFT<14) or high(DMFT≥14) caries risk group. The patients were answered questions about general health, diet and oral hygiene habits. All the restorations were examined clinically according to Modified USPHS criteria. A one way ANOVA was used to compare caries risk groups for the difference in mean age and DMFT scores. The chi-square test was used for determining of differences in caries risk groups across the quality ratings for dental restorations and categories of caries risk factors.

Results: In low caries risk group, anterior restorations were found lower percentage than other caries risk groups. The composite restorations were less frequent and marginal discoloration and surface texture scores presented a higher percentages of unacceptable ratings in high caries risk group (p<0.05). The dental plaque was more as toothbrushing was less frequent in high caries risk group (p<0.05).

Conclusion: The quality of dental restorations can be determined according to the caries risk profile. To increase the success of restorations in individuals with high caries risk, oral hygiene education will be needed.

Key words: Dental restoration, dental caries, adult, modified USPHS criteria

Farklı Çürük Risk Profiline Sahip Erişkinlerde Dental Restorasyonların Klinik Olarak Değerlendirilmesi

ÖZ

Amaç: Restorasyonların kalitesi, material tipi ve çürük riski gibi birçok faktöre bağlı olarak değişiklik göstermektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı çürük risk profiline sahip erişkinlerde Modifiye Birleşik Devletler Halk Sağlığı Servisi (USPHS/Ryge) kriterlerini kullanarak dental restorasyonların kalitesini araştırmaktır.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Toplam 175 hasta ve 642 restorasyon, düşük (DMFT£5), orta (5>DMFT<14) veya yüksek (DMFT³14) çürük risk grubuna ayrıldı. Hastaların genel sağlık, diyet ve ağız hijyen alışkanlıkları ile ilgili sorulara yanıt vermesi sağlandı. Tüm restorasyonlar modifiye USPHS kriterlerine göre klinik olarak incelendi. Çürük risk grupları arasında yaş ortalaması ve DMFT skorları açısından fark olup olmadığı Tek Yönlü ANOVA testi ile değerlendirildi. Restorasyonların kalitesi ve çürük risk faktörleri kategorilerindeki skorlar açısından çürük risk grupları arasındaki farkı belirlemek için Ki kare testi kullanıldı.

Bulgular: Düşük çürük risk grubunda anterior restorasyon sayısı, diğer risk gruplarına göre daha az oranda saptandı. Yüksek çürük risk grubunda kompozit restorasyonlar daha az sıklıkta bulunurken, marjinal renk değişikliği ve yüzey dokusu kriterleri daha yüksek oranda kabul edilemez skorlarını sergiledi (p<0.05). Yüksek çürük risk grubunda dental plak miktarı daha fazla, diş fırçalama sıklığı daha az olarak belirlendi (p<0.05).

Sonuç: Dental restorasyonların başarısı çürük risk profiline göre belirlenebilir. Yüksek çürük riskli bireylerin restorasyon başarısını arttırmak için ağız hijyen eğitimi gereklidir.

Anahtar kelimeler: Dental restorasyon, diş çürüğü, erişkin, modifiye USPHS kriterleri

Keywords

Dental restoration,dental caries,adult

References

1. Basavaraj P, Khuller N, Khuller RI, Sharma N. Caries risk assessment and control. J Oral Health Comm Dent 2011; 5: 58-63.
2. Ruiz Miravet A, Montiel Company JM, Almerich Silla JM. Evaluation of caries risk in a young adult population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007; 12: 412-418.
3. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental caries. Lancet 2007; 369: 51–59.
4. Sonbul H, Al-Otaibi M, Birkhed D. Risk profile of adults with several dental restorations using the Cariogram model. Acta Odontol Scand 2008; 66: 351-357.
5. Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AD, Demarco FF. Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. J Dent. 2012; 40: 703-10.
6. Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AJ, Demarco FF. Do socioeconomic determinants affect the quality of posterior dental restorations? A multilevel approach. J Dent. 2013; 41:960-7.
7. World Health Organization, Oral Health Surveys: Basic Methods, 4th ed. Geneva: 1997.
8. Çongara Kıvrak T ve Mokhtari Tavana A. Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Öğrencilerinde Beslenme Alışkanlığı, Ağız Diş Sağlığı Tutum ve Davranışları ve DMFT Indeksinin Değerlendirilmesi. A. Ü. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg. 2017; 44: 1-7.

9. Mjör IA. Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:1426–33.
10. Miyamoto T, Morgano SM, Kumagai T, Jones JA, Nunn ME. Treatment history of teeth in relation to the longevity of the teeth and their restorations: outcomes of teeth treated and maintained for 15 years. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97:150–6.
11. Akkaya N, Kansu O, Kansu H, Cagirankaya LB, Arslan U. Comparing the accuracy of panoramic and intraoral radiography in the diagnosis of proximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006; 35: 170-174.
12. Fontana M, Zero DT. Assessing patients’ caries risk. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137: 1231-1239.
13. Zemaitiene M, Grigalauskiene R, Andruskeviciene V, Matulaitiene ZK, Zubiene J, Narbutaite J, Slabsinskiene E. Dental caries risk indicators in early childhood and their association with caries polarization in adolescence: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2016 ;17 :2.
14. Demirci M, Tuncer S, Yuceokur AA.Prevalence of caries on individual tooth surfaces and its distribution by age and gender in university clinic patients. Eur J Dent. 2010;4:270-9.
15. Luan W, Baelum V, Fejerskov O, Chen X. Ten-year incidence of dental caries in adult and elderly Chinese. Caries Res. 2000;34: 205–213.
16. Maldupa I., Brinkmane,A. Mihailova A. and Rendeniece I. The impact of dental restorations’ quality on caries risk .SHS Web of Conferences 2, EDP Sciences 2012; 2: 1-10.
17. Reich E, Lussi A, Newbrun E. Caries risk assessment. Int Dent J 1999; 49: 15-26.
18. van Loveren C Sugar Restriction for Caries Prevention: Amount and Frequency. Which Is More Important? Caries Res. 2018; 53: 168-175.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Dentistry

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Gül Yıldız Telatar
0000-0001-5137-9282

Fatih Bedir
0000-0002-4909-4701

Publication Date

January 15, 2020

Submission Date

November 1, 2018

Acceptance Date

November 20, 2019

Published in Issue

Year 2020 Volume: 30 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.649110

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA55AC24YB

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Yıldız Telatar, G., & Bedir, F. (2020). CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1), 88-92. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.649110

AMA

1.Yıldız Telatar G, Bedir F. CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020;30(1):88-92. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.649110

Chicago

Yıldız Telatar, Gül, and Fatih Bedir. 2020. “CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 30 (1): 88-92. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.649110.

EndNote

Yıldız Telatar G, Bedir F (January 1, 2020) CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 30 1 88–92.

IEEE

[1]G. Yıldız Telatar and F. Bedir, “CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE”, Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 88–92, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.17567/ataunidfd.649110.

ISNAD

Yıldız Telatar, Gül - Bedir, Fatih. “CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 30/1 (January 1, 2020): 88-92. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.649110.

JAMA

1.Yıldız Telatar G, Bedir F. CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020;30:88–92.

MLA

Yıldız Telatar, Gül, and Fatih Bedir. “CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 30, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 88-92, doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.649110.

Vancouver

1.Gül Yıldız Telatar, Fatih Bedir. CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020 Jan. 1;30(1):88-92. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.649110

Cited By

Quality comparison of direct composite and indirect ceramic restorations in vital posterior teeth with different carious defect volumes at 6-month follow-up

Kharkiv Dental Journal

https://doi.org/10.26565/3083-5607-2025-6-16