Risk profile and quality of dental restorations: A cross-sectional study

Abstract

Objectives. The aims of the present study were (1) to evaluate the percentage of recurrent caries with respect to the estimated caries risk profile obtained with a Cariogram, (2) to evaluate the quality of restorations in a Saudi population with several restorations and (3) to determine the additional value of bite-wing radiographs as an aid to quality evaluation. Material and methods. A total of 803 restorations were examined in 100 adults according to the United States Public Health Service/Ryge criteria. Salivary and microbiological factors, dietary habits and plaque index were investigated. The Cariogram was used to evaluate the risk profiles. Class II bite-wing radiographs (n = 281) were taken to examine the marginal integrity and the anatomic form proximally. Results. The patients were categorized according to ‘the chance of avoiding caries’ into three risk groups: 0%–20% (n = 38), 21%–40% (n = 28) and 41%–100% (n = 34). ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between the risk groups with respect to the recurrent caries (P < 0.05). A high percentage of the total restorations (56%) were diagnosed with recurrent caries. The quality of anatomic form and surface texture was unacceptable in the majority of cases. After adding the evaluations of class II bite-wings, the percentage of unacceptable restorations increased by 28% and 17% with regard to marginal integrity and anatomic form, respectively (P < 0.001). Conclusions. Recurrent caries was related to the percentage ‘chance of avoiding caries’ as estimated by the Cariogram. The importance of bite-wings was emphasized as an aid to quality evaluation.

Key Words::

• Cariogram
• dental restorations
• quality evaluation
• recurrent caries
• Saudi Arabia

Acknowledgements

The authors express their appreciation to Tommy Johnsson for statistical advice and to Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein, for providing the chair-side tests.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.