Cargando…

Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting

OBJECTIVES: The FDI criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect dental restorations were first published in 2007 and updated in 2010. Meanwhile, their scientific use increased steadily, but several questions from users justified some clarification and improvement of the living document. MATER...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hickel, Reinhard, Mesinger, Sabine, Opdam, Niek, Loomans, Bas, Frankenberger, Roland, Cadenaro, Milena, Burgess, John, Peschke, Arnd, Heintze, Siegward D., Kühnisch, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10264483/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36504246
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04814-1
_version_ 1785058332924444672
author Hickel, Reinhard
Mesinger, Sabine
Opdam, Niek
Loomans, Bas
Frankenberger, Roland
Cadenaro, Milena
Burgess, John
Peschke, Arnd
Heintze, Siegward D.
Kühnisch, Jan
author_facet Hickel, Reinhard
Mesinger, Sabine
Opdam, Niek
Loomans, Bas
Frankenberger, Roland
Cadenaro, Milena
Burgess, John
Peschke, Arnd
Heintze, Siegward D.
Kühnisch, Jan
author_sort Hickel, Reinhard
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The FDI criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect dental restorations were first published in 2007 and updated in 2010. Meanwhile, their scientific use increased steadily, but several questions from users justified some clarification and improvement of the living document. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An expert panel (N = 10) initiated the revision and consensus process that included a kick-off workshop and multiple online meetings by using the Delphi method. During and after each round of discussion, all opinions were collected, and the aggregated summary was presented to the experts aiming to adjust the wording of the criteria as precisely as possible. Finally, the expert panel agreed on the revision. RESULTS: Some categories were redefined, ambiguities were cleared, and the descriptions of all scores were harmonized to cross-link different clinical situations with possible management strategies: reviewing/monitoring (score 1–4), refurbishment/reseal (score 3), repair (score 4), and replacement (score 5). Functional properties (domain F: fracture of material and retention, marginal adaptation, proximal contact, form and contour, occlusion and wear) were now placed at the beginning followed by biological (domain B: caries at restoration margin, hard tissue defects, postoperative hypersensitivity) and aesthetic characteristics (domain A: surface luster and texture, marginal staining, color match). CONCLUSION: The most frequently used eleven categories of the FDI criteria set were revised for better understanding and handling. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The improved description and structuring of the criteria may help to standardize the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations and may enhance their acceptance by researchers, teachers, and dental practitioners. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-022-04814-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10264483
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102644832023-06-15 Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting Hickel, Reinhard Mesinger, Sabine Opdam, Niek Loomans, Bas Frankenberger, Roland Cadenaro, Milena Burgess, John Peschke, Arnd Heintze, Siegward D. Kühnisch, Jan Clin Oral Investig Research OBJECTIVES: The FDI criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect dental restorations were first published in 2007 and updated in 2010. Meanwhile, their scientific use increased steadily, but several questions from users justified some clarification and improvement of the living document. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An expert panel (N = 10) initiated the revision and consensus process that included a kick-off workshop and multiple online meetings by using the Delphi method. During and after each round of discussion, all opinions were collected, and the aggregated summary was presented to the experts aiming to adjust the wording of the criteria as precisely as possible. Finally, the expert panel agreed on the revision. RESULTS: Some categories were redefined, ambiguities were cleared, and the descriptions of all scores were harmonized to cross-link different clinical situations with possible management strategies: reviewing/monitoring (score 1–4), refurbishment/reseal (score 3), repair (score 4), and replacement (score 5). Functional properties (domain F: fracture of material and retention, marginal adaptation, proximal contact, form and contour, occlusion and wear) were now placed at the beginning followed by biological (domain B: caries at restoration margin, hard tissue defects, postoperative hypersensitivity) and aesthetic characteristics (domain A: surface luster and texture, marginal staining, color match). CONCLUSION: The most frequently used eleven categories of the FDI criteria set were revised for better understanding and handling. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The improved description and structuring of the criteria may help to standardize the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations and may enhance their acceptance by researchers, teachers, and dental practitioners. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-022-04814-1. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-12-12 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10264483/ /pubmed/36504246 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04814-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Hickel, Reinhard
Mesinger, Sabine
Opdam, Niek
Loomans, Bas
Frankenberger, Roland
Cadenaro, Milena
Burgess, John
Peschke, Arnd
Heintze, Siegward D.
Kühnisch, Jan
Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting
title Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting
title_full Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting
title_fullStr Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting
title_full_unstemmed Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting
title_short Revised FDI criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting
title_sort revised fdi criteria for evaluating direct and indirect dental restorations—recommendations for its clinical use, interpretation, and reporting
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10264483/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36504246
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04814-1
work_keys_str_mv AT hickelreinhard revisedfdicriteriaforevaluatingdirectandindirectdentalrestorationsrecommendationsforitsclinicaluseinterpretationandreporting
AT mesingersabine revisedfdicriteriaforevaluatingdirectandindirectdentalrestorationsrecommendationsforitsclinicaluseinterpretationandreporting
AT opdamniek revisedfdicriteriaforevaluatingdirectandindirectdentalrestorationsrecommendationsforitsclinicaluseinterpretationandreporting
AT loomansbas revisedfdicriteriaforevaluatingdirectandindirectdentalrestorationsrecommendationsforitsclinicaluseinterpretationandreporting
AT frankenbergerroland revisedfdicriteriaforevaluatingdirectandindirectdentalrestorationsrecommendationsforitsclinicaluseinterpretationandreporting
AT cadenaromilena revisedfdicriteriaforevaluatingdirectandindirectdentalrestorationsrecommendationsforitsclinicaluseinterpretationandreporting
AT burgessjohn revisedfdicriteriaforevaluatingdirectandindirectdentalrestorationsrecommendationsforitsclinicaluseinterpretationandreporting
AT peschkearnd revisedfdicriteriaforevaluatingdirectandindirectdentalrestorationsrecommendationsforitsclinicaluseinterpretationandreporting
AT heintzesiegwardd revisedfdicriteriaforevaluatingdirectandindirectdentalrestorationsrecommendationsforitsclinicaluseinterpretationandreporting
AT kuhnischjan revisedfdicriteriaforevaluatingdirectandindirectdentalrestorationsrecommendationsforitsclinicaluseinterpretationandreporting