Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad , Nawaf AlGhamdi , Mohammed Alqahtani , Osama A. Alsulaiman , Ali Alshammari , Malik J. Farraj , Ahmed A. Alsulaiman
{"title":"使用咬翼X光片预测二类树脂复合修复体的程序错误","authors":"Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad , Nawaf AlGhamdi , Mohammed Alqahtani , Osama A. Alsulaiman , Ali Alshammari , Malik J. Farraj , 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> = <0.0001), 0.41 the risk of sharp angle (OR = 0.41; CI = 0.24<strong>–</strong>0.68; <em>P</em> = <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 >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> = <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> = <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":"{\"title\":\"Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs\",\"authors\":\"Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad , Nawaf AlGhamdi , Mohammed Alqahtani , Osama A. Alsulaiman , Ali Alshammari , Malik J. Farraj , 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> = <0.0001), 0.41 the risk of sharp angle (OR = 0.41; CI = 0.24<strong>–</strong>0.68; <em>P</em> = <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 >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> = <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> = <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}","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}
Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs
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] = 0.25–0.60; P = <0.0001), 0.41 the risk of sharp angle (OR = 0.41; CI = 0.24–0.68; P = <0.001), and 0.57 the risk of open contact (OR = 0.57; CI = 0.34–0.97; 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 = 1.04–3.11; P = <0.04). First molars and premolars had 0.64 the risk of overhang compared to second molars and premolars (OR = 0.64; CI = 0.41–1.00; P = 0.04). Junior students had 1.97 the risk of internal gap compared to their senior counterparts (OR = 1.97; CI = 1.20–3.21; P = 0.008). Mesial restorations had 0.38 the risk of external gap compared to mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) restorations (OR = 0.38; CI = 0.19–0.78; 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 = 0.29–0.66; 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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
