Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Digital photography vs. clinical assessment of resin composite restorations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Odontology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare direct clinical and indirect digital photographic assessment of resin composite restorations. Ninety-two posterior resin composite restorations were classified using World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria by two different clinical examiners (C1 and C2). In the same appointment of clinical assessment, intraoral high-quality digital photographs were taken and posteriorly two different digital examiners (D1 and D2) classified the images of each restoration. Restorations of each patient were assessed once by C1 and C2 independently. D1 and D2 assessed the digital images from different locations and in different time. Data were analyzed using the Cohen’s kappa coefficient, Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test and Dunn's multiple shared test, with 95% confidence. Agreement levels varied from very good (0.81–1.00) to fair (0.21–0.40). Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between assessments were found for surface lustre, staining, color match and translucency, esthetic anatomical form, fracture of material and retention and marginal adaptation. The classification of the resin composite restorations varied significantly according to clinical or high-quality digital photographic assessments. Overall, clinical assessment detected more demand for repair or replacement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blum IR, Ozcan M. Reparative dentistry: possibilities and limitations. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2018;5:264–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Estay J, Martın J, Viera V, Valdivieso J, Bersezio C, Vildosola P, Mjor IA, Andrade MF, Moraes RR, Moncada G, Gordan VV, Ferndéz E. 12 years of repair of amalgam and composite resins: a clinical study. Oper Dent. 2018;43:12–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brantley CF, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Nesbit SP. Does the cycle of restoration lead to larger restorations? J Am Dent Assoc. 1995;126:1407–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bottenberg P, Jaquet W, Behrens C, Stachniss V, Jablonski-Momeni A. Comparison of occlusal caries detection using ICDAS criteria on extracted teeth or their photographs. BMC Oral Health. 2016;16(1):93 (1–8).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Moncada G, Silva F, Angel P, Oliveira OB Jr, Fresno MC, Cisternas P, Fernandez E, Estay J, Martin J. Evaluation of dental restorations: a comparative study between clinical and digital photographic assessments. Oper Dent. 2014;39(2):E45–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Signori C, Collares K, Cumerlato CBF, Correa MB, Opdam NJM, Cenci MS. Validation of assessment of intraoral digital photography for evaluation of dental restorations in clinical research. J Dent. 2018;71:54–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Smales RJ, Creaven PJ. Evaluation of three clinical methods for assessing amalgam and resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1985;54(3):340–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen Y, Lee W, Ferretti GA, Slayton RL, Nelson S. Agreement between photographic and clinical examinations in detecting developmental defects of enamel in infants. J Public Health Dent. 2013;73(3):204–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Golkari A, Sabokseir A, Pakshir HR, Dean MC, Sheiham A, Watt RG. A comparison of photographic, replication and direct clinical examination methods for detecting developmental defects of enamel. BMC Oral Health. 2011;11(16):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Silvani S, Trivelato RF, Nogueira RD, Gonçalves Lde S, Geraldo-Martins VR. Factors affecting the placement or replacement of direct restorations in a dental school. Contemp Clin Dent. 2014;5(1):54–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Pintado-Palomino K, de Almeida CVVB, da Motta RJG, Fortes JHP, Tirapelli C. Clinical, double blind, randomized controlled trial of experimental adhesive protocols in caries-affected dentin. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(4):1855–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Subbalekshmi T, Anandan V, Apathsakayan R. Use of a teledentistry-based program for screening of early childhood caries in a school setting. Cureus. 2017;9(7):e1416 (1–7).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hu X, Fan M, Mulder J, Frencken JE. Are carious lesions in previously sealed occlusal surfaces detected as well on colour photographs as by visual clinical examination? Oral Hlth Prev Dent. 2016;14(3):275–81.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Estai M, Kanagasingam Y, Huang B, Checker H, Steele L, Kruger E, Tennant M. The efficacy of remote screening for dental caries by mid-level dental providers using a mobile teledentistry model. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2016;44:435–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Erten H, Uçtasli MB, Akarslan ZZ, Uzun O, Semiz M. Restorative treatment decision making with unaided visual examination, intraoral camera and operating microscope. Oper Dent. 2006;31(1):55–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cruz-Orcutt N, Warren JJ, Broffitt B, Levy SM, Weber-Gasparoni K. Examiner reliability of fluorosis scoring: a comparison of photographic and clinical examination findings. J Public Health Dent. 2012;72(2):172–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Martins CC, Chalub L, Lima-Arsati YB, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM. Agreement in the diagnosis of dental fluorosis in central incisors performed by a standardized photographic method and clinical examination. Cad Saúde Pública. 2009;25(5):1017–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pinto GS, Goettems ML, Brancher LC, da Silva FB, Boeira GF, Correa MB, dos Santos IS, Torriane DD, Demarco FF. Validation of the digital photographic assessment to diagnose traumatic dental injuries. Dent Traumatol. 2016;32:37–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Opdam NJM, Collares K, Hickel R, Bayne SC, Loomans BA, Cenci MS, Lynch CD, Correa MB, Demarco F, Schwendicke F, Wilson NHF. Clinical studies in restorative dentistry: new directions and new demands. Dent Mater. 2018;34(1):1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, Schulz KF, Tibshirani R. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J, Chemla F, Gritsch K, Maurin JC, Millet P, Pérard M, Grosgogeat B, Dursun E. The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: a scoping review. J Dent. 2018;68:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98--FDI World Dental Federation study design (Part I) and criteria for evaluation (Part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns. J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9 Suppl 1:121–47. Review. Erratum in: J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9(6):546.

  23. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD. FDI World Dental Federation—clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J Adhes Dent. 2010;12(4):259–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Grant #2010/12032-6, #2011/07039-4 and #2012/08312-9 from São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil

    Cecília Vilela Vasconcelos Barros de Almeida, João Henrique Parise Fortes, Raphael Jurca Gonçalves da Motta, Bruna Neves de Freitas, Wilson Matsumoto & Camila Tirapelli

  2. Unity Postgraduate, School of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Av. Germán Amézaga N°375-Ciudad Universitaria-3° Nivel, Cercado de Lima, Lima, Perú

    Karen Pintado-Palomino

  3. Department of Prosthesis, School of Dentistry of Pernambuco, University of Pernambuco, Camaragibe, Brazil

    Maria Tereza Moura de Oliveira Cavalcanti & Josué Alves

Authors
  1. Cecília Vilela Vasconcelos Barros de Almeida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Pintado-Palomino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. João Henrique Parise Fortes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raphael Jurca Gonçalves da Motta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bruna Neves de Freitas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wilson Matsumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maria Tereza Moura de Oliveira Cavalcanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Josué Alves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Camila Tirapelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Pintado-Palomino.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Clinical relevance

Digital photography is useful in the dental exam by the provision of more detailed/magnified information to be observed repeated times and by other examiners. Depending if the observation was done through digital photographic images or in the dental clinical exam the clinical decision on the maintenance, repair or replace the restoration can change.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Almeida, C.V.V.B., Pintado-Palomino, K., Fortes, J.H.P. et al. Digital photography vs. clinical assessment of resin composite restorations. Odontology 109, 184–192 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00511-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00511-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation