131
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Article

Patients’ self-report on post-retained restoration is more valuable than expected! Explorative analysis of an 11-year follow-up

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, , &
Pages 33-38 | Received 31 Dec 2017, Accepted 24 Jun 2018, Published online: 29 Aug 2018
 

Abstract

Objective: Assessment of long-term clinical data regarding post-endodontic restorations is essential for the evaluation of different post-and-core concepts. The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of patient self-reporting on post-endodontic restorations after 11 years of clinical service.

Materials and methods: Twenty-nine patients (61 ± 15 years old) with endodontic glass-fibre and titanium post-endodontic restorations were examined within the 11-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Restorations were assessed by self-reports during a telephone interview (one item), the completion of a four-item questionnaire and clinical and radiographic examination. A gold standard for restoration in situ or ‘failure’ was defined by clinical and radiographic examination. Diagnostic accuracy of patients’ self-reports was evaluated by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV).

Results: After a mean observation time of 137 months (min/max: 125/154 months), 25 (86.2%) restorations were in situ and 4 (13.8%) failures were detected. Self-report during a telephone interview and the four-item questionnaire correctly identified all in situ restorations (specificity = both 100%, NPV = 92.6%/96.2%). Self-report during a telephone interview identified two out of four failures (sensitivity = 50%, PPV = 100%), and self-report on the four-item questionnaire identified three out of four failures (sensitivity = 75%, PPV = 100%).

Conclusions: When the clinical examination is not feasible, patients’ self-report shows valuable diagnostic potential in the identification of the post-endodontic failure.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (No. NCT01520766).

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

There are no offers available at the current time.

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.