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
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.
Abstract
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 | Araştırma Makalesi |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | January 15, 2020 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2020 Volume: 30 Issue: 1 |
Cite
Bu eser Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır. Tıklayınız.