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.

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

Cadenaro, Milena
Investigation
;
2023-01-01

Abstract

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.
2023
12-dic-2022
Pubblicato
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00784-022-04814-1
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s00784-022-04814-1.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 725.02 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
725.02 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/3040059
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 8
social impact