CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 30 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 88 - 92 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 İndeks Tarihi: 07-11-2020
CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE
Öz: Aim: The quality of restorations varies depending on many factors such as type of material and caries risk. The objective of thisresearch was to investigate the quality of dental restorations by using the Modified United States Public Health Service criteria(USPHS/Ryge) in adults with different caries risk profile.Materials and methods: A total of 175 patients and their 642 restorations were divided into low(DMFT≤5),moderate(5>DMFT<14) or high(DMFT≥14) caries risk group. The patients were answered questions about general health, dietand oral hygiene habits. All the restorations were examined clinically according to Modified USPHS criteria. A one way ANOVAwas used to compare caries risk groups for the difference in mean age and DMFT scores. The chi-square test was used fordetermining of differences in caries risk groups across the quality ratings for dental restorations and categories of caries riskfactors.Results: In low caries risk group, anterior restorations were found lower percentage than other caries risk groups. Thecomposite restorations were less frequent and marginal discoloration and surface texture scores presented a higherpercentages of unacceptable ratings in high caries risk group (p<0.05). The dental plaque was more as toothbrushing was lessfrequent in high caries risk group (p<0.05).Conclusion: The quality of dental restorations can be determined according to the caries risk profile. To increase the successof restorations in individuals with high caries risk, oral hygiene education will be needed.
Anahtar Kelime: FARKLI ÇÜRÜK RİSK PROFİLİNE SAHİP ERİŞKİNLERDE DENTAL RESTORASYONLARIN KLİNİK OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ
Öz: Amaç: Restorasyonların kalitesi, material tipi ve çürük riski gibi birçok faktöre bağlı olarak değişiklik göstermektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı çürük risk profiline sahip erişkinlerde Modifiye Birleşik Devletler Halk Sağlığı Servisi (USPHS/Ryge) kriterlerini kullanarak dental restorasyonların kalitesini araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Toplam 175 hasta ve 642 restorasyon, düşük (DMFT5), orta (5DMFT14) veya yüksek (DMFT14) çürük risk grubuna ayrıldı. Hastaların genel sağlık, diyet ve ağız hijyen alışkanlıkları ile ilgili sorulara yanıt vermesi sağlandı. Tüm restorasyonlar modifiye USPHS kriterlerine göre klinik olarak incelendi. Çürük risk grupları arasında yaş ortalaması ve DMFT skorları açısından fark olup olmadığı Tek Yönlü ANOVA testi ile değerlendirildi. Restorasyonların kalitesi ve çürük risk faktörleri kategorilerindeki skorlar açısından çürük risk grupları arasındaki farkı belirlemek için Ki kare testi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Düşük çürük risk grubunda anterior restorasyon sayısı, diğer risk gruplarına göre daha az oranda saptandı. Yüksek çürük risk grubunda kompozit restorasyonlar daha az sıklıkta bulunurken, marjinal renk değişikliği ve yüzey dokusu kriterleri daha yüksek oranda kabul edilemez skorlarını sergiledi (p0.05). Yüksek çürük risk grubunda dental plak miktarı daha fazla, diş fırçalama sıklığı daha az olarak belirlendi (p0.05). Sonuç: Dental restorasyonların başarısı çürük risk profiline göre belirlenebilir. Yüksek çürük riskli bireylerin restorasyon başarısını arttırmak için ağız hijyen eğitimi gereklidir.
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- 1. Basavaraj P, Khuller N, Khuller RI, Sharma N. Caries risk assessment and control. J Oral Health Comm Dent 2011; 5:58-63.
- 2. Ruiz Miravet A, Montiel Company JM, Almerich Silla JM. Evaluation of caries risk in a young adult population. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2007; 12:412-8.
- 3. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental caries. Lancet 2007; 369:51–9.
- 4. Sonbul H, Al-Otaibi M, Birkhed D. Risk profile of adults with several dental restorations using the Cariogram model. Acta Odontol Scand 2008; 66:351-7.
- 5. Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AD, Demarco FF. Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. J Dent 2012; 40:703-10.
- 6. Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AJ, Demarco FF. Do socioeconomic determinants affect the quality of posterior dental restorations? A multilevel approach. J Dent 2013; 41:960-7.
- 7. World Health Organization, Oral Health Surveys: Basic Methods, 4th ed. Geneva:1997.
- 8. Çongara Kıvrak T ve Mokhtari Tavana A. Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Öğrencilerinde Beslenme Alışkanlığı, Ağız Diş Sağlığı Tutum ve Davranışları ve DMFT Indeksinin Değerlendirilmesi. A. Ü. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg 2017; 44:1-7.
- 9. Mjör IA. Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136:1426–33.
- 10. Miyamoto T, Morgano SM, Kumagai T, Jones JA, Nunn ME. Treatment history of teeth in relation to the longevity of the teeth and their restorations: outcomes of teeth treated and maintained for 15 years. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97:150–6.
- 11. Akkaya N, Kansu O, Kansu H, Cagirankaya LB, Arslan U. Comparing the accuracy of panoramic and intraoral radiography in the diagnosis of proximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006; 35:170-4.
- 12. Fontana M, Zero DT. Assessing patients’ caries risk. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137:1231-9.
- 13. Zemaitiene M, Grigalauskiene R, Andruskeviciene V, Matulaitiene ZK, Zubiene J, Narbutaite J, Slabsinskiene E. Dental caries risk indicators in early childhood and their association with caries polarization in adolescence: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2016; 17:2.
- 14. Demirci M, Tuncer S, Yuceokur AA.Prevalence of caries on individual tooth surfaces and its distribution by age and gender in university clinic patients. Eur J Dent. 2010; 4:270-9.
- 15. Luan W, Baelum V, Fejerskov O, Chen X. Ten-year incidence of dental caries in adult and elderly Chinese. Caries Res. 2000; 34:205–13.
- 16. Maldupa I., Brinkmane,A. Mihailova A. and Rendeniece I. The impact of dental restorations’ quality on caries risk. SHS Web of Conferences 2, EDP Sciences 2012; 2:1-10.
- 17. Reich E, Lussi A, Newbrun E. Caries risk assessment. Int Dent J 1999; 49: 15-26.
- 18. van Loveren C Sugar Restriction for Caries Prevention: Amount and Frequency. Which Is More Important? Caries Res. 2018; 53:168-75.
| APA | Yildiz Telatar G, Bedir f (2020). CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. , 88 - 92. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| Chicago | Yildiz Telatar Gul,Bedir fatih CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. (2020): 88 - 92. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| MLA | Yildiz Telatar Gul,Bedir fatih CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. , 2020, ss.88 - 92. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| AMA | Yildiz Telatar G,Bedir f CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. . 2020; 88 - 92. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| Vancouver | Yildiz Telatar G,Bedir f CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. . 2020; 88 - 92. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| IEEE | Yildiz Telatar G,Bedir f "CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE." , ss.88 - 92, 2020. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| ISNAD | Yildiz Telatar, Gul - Bedir, fatih. "CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE". (2020), 88-92. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| APA | Yildiz Telatar G, Bedir f (2020). CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1), 88 - 92. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| Chicago | Yildiz Telatar Gul,Bedir fatih CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 30, no.1 (2020): 88 - 92. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| MLA | Yildiz Telatar Gul,Bedir fatih CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.30, no.1, 2020, ss.88 - 92. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| AMA | Yildiz Telatar G,Bedir f CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020; 30(1): 88 - 92. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| Vancouver | Yildiz Telatar G,Bedir f CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2020; 30(1): 88 - 92. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| IEEE | Yildiz Telatar G,Bedir f "CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE." Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, ss.88 - 92, 2020. 10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
| ISNAD | Yildiz Telatar, Gul - Bedir, fatih. "CLINICAL EVALUATION OF DENTAL RESTORATIONS IN ADULTS WITH DIFFERENT CARIES RISK PROFILE". Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 30/1 (2020), 88-92. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.64911 |
