Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs
Objective: To identify the potential factors that induce procedural errors during posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by dental students. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study evaluated 803 bitewing radiographs of posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2024-04-01
|
| Series: | Saudi Dental Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S101390522300281X |
| _version_ | 1827279145658220544 |
|---|---|
| author | Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad Nawaf AlGhamdi Mohammed Alqahtani Osama A. Alsulaiman Ali Alshammari Malik J. Farraj Ahmed A. Alsulaiman |
| author_facet | Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad Nawaf AlGhamdi Mohammed Alqahtani Osama A. Alsulaiman Ali Alshammari Malik J. Farraj Ahmed A. Alsulaiman |
| author_sort | Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective: To identify the potential factors that induce procedural errors during posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by dental students. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study evaluated 803 bitewing radiographs of posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by dental students at Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University. Atypical radiographic signs of failure were screened, and different patient-, operator-, and clinical-related factors were recorded. Chi-square test was used to examine the relationship between procedural errors and recorded factors. Stepwise adjusted logistic regression model was performed to identify predictors of procedural errors. Results: The most observed errors were internal gaps at the bonding interface and internal voids. Molars had 0.39 the risk of internal voids (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39; confidence interval [CI] = 0.25–0.60; P = <0.0001), 0.41 the risk of sharp angle (OR = 0.41; CI = 0.24–0.68; P = <0.001), and 0.57 the risk of open contact (OR = 0.57; CI = 0.34–0.97; P = 0.04) compared to premolars. Those who were >40 years of age had 1.79 the risk of overhang compared to younger patients (OR = 1.79; CI = 1.04–3.11; P = <0.04). First molars and premolars had 0.64 the risk of overhang compared to second molars and premolars (OR = 0.64; CI = 0.41–1.00; P = 0.04). Junior students had 1.97 the risk of internal gap compared to their senior counterparts (OR = 1.97; CI = 1.20–3.21; P = 0.008). Mesial restorations had 0.38 the risk of external gap compared to mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) restorations (OR = 0.38; CI = 0.19–0.78; P = 0.003). Restorations with a margin coronal to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) had 0.44 the risk of external gap compared to those restorations with a margin apical to the CEJ (OR = 0.44; CI = 0.29–0.66; P = <0.0001). Conclusion: Our findings suggested a higher incidence of procedural errors in restoring premolars and MOD cavity preparations. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the comprehensiveness of laboratory training and expose students to diverse clinical scenarios and various techniques. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T08:14:15Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b2331ff894d24962ae48ca095d7acfda |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1013-9052 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T08:14:15Z |
| publishDate | 2024-04-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Saudi Dental Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-b2331ff894d24962ae48ca095d7acfda2024-04-17T04:48:32ZengElsevierSaudi Dental Journal1013-90522024-04-01364638644Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographsAbdulrahman A. Balhaddad0Nawaf AlGhamdi1Mohammed Alqahtani2Osama A. Alsulaiman3Ali Alshammari4Malik J. Farraj5Ahmed A. Alsulaiman6Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O. Box 1982, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia; Corresponding author.Internship Program, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi ArabiaInternship Program, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O. Box 1982, Dammam 31441, Saudi ArabiaDental Hospital, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O. Box 1982, Dammam 31441, Saudi ArabiaDepartment of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O. Box 1982, Dammam 31441, Saudi ArabiaObjective: To identify the potential factors that induce procedural errors during posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by dental students. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study evaluated 803 bitewing radiographs of posterior proximal resin composite restorations placed by dental students at Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University. Atypical radiographic signs of failure were screened, and different patient-, operator-, and clinical-related factors were recorded. Chi-square test was used to examine the relationship between procedural errors and recorded factors. Stepwise adjusted logistic regression model was performed to identify predictors of procedural errors. Results: The most observed errors were internal gaps at the bonding interface and internal voids. Molars had 0.39 the risk of internal voids (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39; confidence interval [CI] = 0.25–0.60; P = <0.0001), 0.41 the risk of sharp angle (OR = 0.41; CI = 0.24–0.68; P = <0.001), and 0.57 the risk of open contact (OR = 0.57; CI = 0.34–0.97; P = 0.04) compared to premolars. Those who were >40 years of age had 1.79 the risk of overhang compared to younger patients (OR = 1.79; CI = 1.04–3.11; P = <0.04). First molars and premolars had 0.64 the risk of overhang compared to second molars and premolars (OR = 0.64; CI = 0.41–1.00; P = 0.04). Junior students had 1.97 the risk of internal gap compared to their senior counterparts (OR = 1.97; CI = 1.20–3.21; P = 0.008). Mesial restorations had 0.38 the risk of external gap compared to mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) restorations (OR = 0.38; CI = 0.19–0.78; P = 0.003). Restorations with a margin coronal to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) had 0.44 the risk of external gap compared to those restorations with a margin apical to the CEJ (OR = 0.44; CI = 0.29–0.66; P = <0.0001). Conclusion: Our findings suggested a higher incidence of procedural errors in restoring premolars and MOD cavity preparations. Therefore, it is crucial to enhance the comprehensiveness of laboratory training and expose students to diverse clinical scenarios and various techniques.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S101390522300281XBondingCariesOverhangVoidsRadiograph |
| spellingShingle | Abdulrahman A. Balhaddad Nawaf AlGhamdi Mohammed Alqahtani Osama A. Alsulaiman Ali Alshammari Malik J. Farraj Ahmed A. Alsulaiman Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs Saudi Dental Journal Bonding Caries Overhang Voids Radiograph |
| title | Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs |
| title_full | Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs |
| title_fullStr | Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs |
| title_full_unstemmed | Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs |
| title_short | Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs |
| title_sort | predictors of procedural errors in class ii resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs |
| topic | Bonding Caries Overhang Voids Radiograph |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S101390522300281X |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT abdulrahmanabalhaddad predictorsofproceduralerrorsinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingbitewingradiographs AT nawafalghamdi predictorsofproceduralerrorsinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingbitewingradiographs AT mohammedalqahtani predictorsofproceduralerrorsinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingbitewingradiographs AT osamaaalsulaiman predictorsofproceduralerrorsinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingbitewingradiographs AT alialshammari predictorsofproceduralerrorsinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingbitewingradiographs AT malikjfarraj predictorsofproceduralerrorsinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingbitewingradiographs AT ahmedaalsulaiman predictorsofproceduralerrorsinclassiiresincompositerestorationsusingbitewingradiographs |