Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98--FDI World Dental Federation study design (Part I) and criteria for evaluation (Part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns.

About 35 years ago, Ryge provided a practical approach to the evaluation of the clinical performance of restorative materials. This systematic approach was soon universally accepted. While that methodology has served us well, a large number of scientific methodologies and more detailed questions have arisen that require more rigor. Current restorative materials have vastly improved clinical performance, and any changes over time are not easily detected by the limited sensitivity of the Ryge criteria in short-term clinical investigations. However, the clinical evaluation of restorations not only involves the restorative material per se but also different operative techniques. For instance, a composite resin may show good longevity data when applied in conventional cavities but not in modified operative approaches. Insensitivity, combined with the continually evolving and nonstandard investigator modifications of the categories, scales, and reporting methods, has created a body of literature that is extremely difficult to interpret meaningfully. In many cases, the insensitivity of the original Ryge methods leads to misinterpretation as good clinical performance. While there are many good features of the original system, it is now time to move on to a more contemporary one. The current review approaches this challenge in two ways: (1) a proposal for a modern clinical testing protocol for controlled clinical trials, and (2) an in-depth discussion of relevant clinical evaluation parameters, providing 84 references that are primarily related to issues or problems for clinical research trials. Together, these two parts offer a standard for the clinical testing of restorative materials/procedures and provide significant guidance for research teams in the design and conduct of contemporary clinical trials. Part 1 of the review considers the recruitment of subjects, restorations per subject, clinical events, validity versus bias, legal and regulatory aspects, rationales for clinical trial designs, guidelines for design, randomization, number of subjects, characteristics of participants, clinical assessment, standards and calibration, categories for assessment, criteria for evaluation, and supplemental documentation. Part 2 of the review considers categories of assessment for esthetic evaluation, functional assessment, biological responses to restorative materials, and statistical analysis of results. The overall review represents a considerable effort to include a range of clinical research interests over the past years. As part of the recognition of the importance of these suggestions, the review is being published simultaneously in identical form in both the Journal of Adhesive Dentistry and Clinical Oral Investigations. Additionally, an extended abstract will be published in the International Dental Journal, giving a link to the web full version. This should help to introduce these considerations more quickly to the scientific community.

[1]  D. Cox Regression Models and Life-Tables , 1972 .

[2]  R Perry,et al.  Composite restoration wear analysis: conventional methods vs. three-dimensional laser digitizer. , 2000, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[3]  R. Going,et al.  Microleakage around dental restorations: a summarizing review. , 1972, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[4]  Gerald T. Charbeneau,et al.  Principles and Practice of Operative Dentistry , 1988 .

[5]  G. Moncada,et al.  Alternative treatments for resin-based composite and amalgam restorations with marginal defects: a 12-month clinical trial. , 2006, General dentistry.

[6]  Wolfgang M Bengel,et al.  Digital photography and the assessment of therapeutic results after bleaching procedures. , 2003, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[7]  C. Berkey,et al.  Split-mouth and cross-over designs in dental research. , 1990, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[8]  P. Gaengler,et al.  Micromorphological evaluation of posterior composite restorations - a 10-year report. , 2004, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[9]  D. Sarrett Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. , 2005, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[10]  S. Ebisu,et al.  Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays. , 1998, Operative dentistry.

[11]  V. Flack,et al.  Radiographic Secondary Caries Prevalence in Teeth with Clinically Defective Restorations , 1993, Journal of dental research.

[12]  G. Schmalz,et al.  Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials , 2005, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[13]  I. Mjör The location of clinically diagnosed secondary caries. , 1998, Quintessence international.

[14]  R. Hickel,et al.  Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations. , 2000, American journal of dentistry.

[15]  I. Mjör,et al.  Failure, repair, refurbishing and longevity of restorations. , 2002, Operative dentistry.

[16]  Harker Jh Longevity of restorations. , 2002 .

[17]  E. Kidd,et al.  Marginal Ditching and Staining as a Predictor of Secondary Caries Around Amalgam Restorations: A Clinical and Microbiological Study , 1995, Journal of dental research.

[18]  I. Mjör Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries. , 2005, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[19]  R. Smales,et al.  Long-term survival of repaired amalgams, recemented crowns and gold castings. , 2004, Operative dentistry.

[20]  Deterioration of Restorative Materials and the Risk for Secondary Caries , 1990, Advances in dental research.

[21]  E. Kidd,et al.  Prediction of Secondary Caries around Tooth-colored Restorations: A Clinical and Microbiological Study , 1996, Journal of dental research.

[22]  R. Hickel,et al.  Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. , 2001, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[23]  D Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Annals of internal medicine.

[24]  N. Opdam,et al.  Class I occlusal composite resin restorations: in vivo post-operative sensitivity, wall adaptation, and microleakage. , 1998, American journal of dentistry.

[25]  H. Mühlemann,et al.  Gingival sulcus bleeding--a leading symptom in initial gingivitis. , 1971, Helvetica odontologica acta.

[26]  I. Mjör,et al.  Mutans Streptococci in Plaque from Margins of Amalgam, Composite, and Glass-ionomer Restorations , 1990, Journal of dental research.

[27]  David E. Matthews,et al.  Using and Understanding Medical Statistics , 1984 .

[28]  V. Gordan,et al.  Marginal gap repair with flowable resin-based composites. , 2004, General dentistry.

[29]  R. Elderton,et al.  An in vitro study of restorative dental treatment decisions and dental caries , 1984, British Dental Journal.

[30]  P. Odman,et al.  A five-year clinical evaluation of Class II composite resin restorations. , 2000, Journal of dentistry.

[31]  H. Löe,et al.  PERIODONTAL DISEASE IN PREGNANCY. II. CORRELATION BETWEEN ORAL HYGIENE AND PERIODONTAL CONDTION. , 1964, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[32]  V. Rousson,et al.  Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials , 2007, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[33]  I. Mjör,et al.  Marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations. , 1997, Journal of dentistry.

[34]  J F Roulet,et al.  Quantitative margin analysis in the scanning electron microscope. , 1989, Scanning microscopy.

[35]  I. Mjör,et al.  Effect of size of defect on the repair strength of amalgam. , 2007, Quintessence international.

[36]  D. Moher,et al.  Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. , 2001, JAMA.

[37]  A. Tveit,et al.  Radiopacity of restorations and detection of secondary caries. , 1991, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[38]  F Toffenetti,et al.  Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. , 2000, Quintessence international.

[39]  F. Mosteller,et al.  A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. , 1992, JAMA.

[40]  Mjör Ia Frequency of secondary caries at various anatomical locations. , 1985, Operative dentistry.

[41]  U. Pallesen,et al.  Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation , 2003, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[42]  D C Sarrett,et al.  Visual and profilometric wear measurements. , 1992, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[43]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Do condensable composites help to achieve better proximal contacts? , 2001, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[44]  A. Tveit,et al.  Vertical angulation of the X-ray beam and radiographic diagnosis of secondary caries. , 1991, Community dentistry and oral epidemiology.

[45]  J. Riley,et al.  Two-year clinical evaluation of repair versus replacement of composite restorations. , 2006, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[46]  N. Wilson,et al.  Failure risk of posterior composites with post-operative sensitivity. , 2003, Operative dentistry.

[47]  S. Heintze Systematic reviews: I. The correlation between laboratory tests on marginal quality and bond strength. II. The correlation between marginal quality and clinical outcome. , 2007, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[48]  J. Riley,et al.  2-year clinical evaluation of alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations. , 2006, Operative dentistry.

[49]  N. Opdam,et al.  A radiographic and scanning electron microscopic study of approximal margins of Class II resin composite restorations placed in vivo. , 1998, Journal of dentistry.

[50]  Elderton Rj Overtreatment with restorative dentistry: when to intervene? , 1993 .

[51]  I. Mjör,et al.  The effect of mechanical undercuts on the strength of composite repair. , 2004, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[52]  S. Heintze,et al.  Interdental mutans streptococci suppression in vivo: a comparison of different chlorhexidine regimens in relation to restorative material. , 2002, American journal of dentistry.

[53]  N. Opdam,et al.  Marginal integrity and postoperative sensitivity in Class 2 resin composite restorations in vivo. , 1998, Journal of dentistry.

[54]  I. Mjör,et al.  Current teaching of cariology in North American dental schools. , 2001, Operative dentistry.

[55]  E. Kidd,et al.  Caries Diagnosis Within Restored Teeth , 1990, Advances in dental research.

[56]  M. E. Davis,et al.  A microbiological study of recurrent dentinal caries. , 1994, Caries research.

[57]  R. Hickel,et al.  Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. , 2004, Operative dentistry.

[58]  David Collett Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research , 1994 .

[59]  I. Mjör,et al.  The repair of direct composite restorations: an international survey of the teaching of operative techniques and materials. , 2003, European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe.

[60]  G. Gilbert,et al.  Research in general dental practice* , 2005, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.