Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Clinical evaluation methods for posterior composite restorations.

A J Goldberg, E Rydinge, E A Santucci

    Journal of Dental Research
    |December 1, 1984
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Defining reference values for the normal tibiofibular syndesmosis in adults using weight-bearing CT.

    The bone & joint journal·2019
    Same author

    Prevalence of isolated gastrocnemius tightness in patients with foot and ankle pathology: a population-based study.

    The bone & joint journal·2018
    Same author

    Can a urine dipstick test be used to assess smoking status in patients undergoing planned orthopaedic surgery? a prospective cohort study.

    The bone & joint journal·2016
    Same author

    The need for improving workmen's compensation for radiation injuries.

    Compensation medicine·2014
    Same author

    An information revolution in orthopaedics.

    The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume·2012
    Same author

    Polypeptide-catalyzed biosilicification of dentin surfaces.

    Journal of dental research·2009

    This study compared three methods for evaluating posterior composite restoration wear over two years. A standardized model categorization method proved most sensitive, detecting significant differences early in the study.

    Area of Science:

    • Dental Materials Science
    • Clinical Research Methodology

    Background:

    • Assessing the in vivo wear of posterior composite restorations is crucial for material longevity.
    • Existing evaluation systems, like the US Public Health Service (USPHS) system, provide a baseline for clinical assessment.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To compare the sensitivity of two novel in vivo wear evaluation methods against the established USPHS system for posterior composite restorations.
    • To determine the earliest point at which statistically significant differences in wear between composite formulations can be detected.

    Main Methods:

    • Three methods were employed: the USPHS direct clinical evaluation system, total ranking of models, and categorization of models according to a set of standards.
    • Evaluations were conducted over a two-year period, with consistent assessments across all methods and time points.

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • All three methods demonstrated consistency over the two-year study period.
    • The methods, in order of increasing sensitivity, were: USPHS, total ranking, and standardized model categorization.
    • Standardized model categorization identified statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between composite formulations by the nine-month recall.
    • All tested composite formulations exhibited progressive wear over time, albeit at a diminishing rate.

    Conclusions:

    • Standardized categorization of models offers superior sensitivity for detecting in vivo wear differences in posterior composite restorations compared to USPHS and total ranking methods.
    • This enhanced sensitivity allows for earlier identification of material performance variations, aiding in material selection and development.
    • Wear progresses over time but at a decelerating rate for all evaluated composite formulations.