title: FDI World Dental Federation - clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples.
abstract: In 2007, new clinical criteria were approved by the FDI World Dental Federation and simultaneously published in three dental journals. The criteria were categorized into three groups: esthetic parameters (four criteria), functional parameters (six criteria), and biological parameters (six criteria). Each criterion can be expressed with five scores, three for acceptable and two for non-acceptable (one for reparable and one for replacement). The criteria have been used in several clinical studies since 2007, and the resulting experience in their application has led to a requirement to modify some of the criteria and scores. The two major alterations involve staining and approximal contacts. As staining of the margins and the surface have different causes, both phenomena do not appear simultaneously. Thus, staining has been differentiated into marginal staining and surface staining. The approximal contact now appears under the name "approximal anatomic form" as the approximal contour is a specific, often non-esthetic issue that cannot be integrated into the criterion "esthetic anatomical form". In 2008, a web-based training and calibration tool called e-calib (www.e-calib.info) was made available. Clinical investigators and other research workers can train and calibrate themselves interactively by assessing clinical cases of posterior restorations, which are presented as high quality pictures. Currently, about 300 clinical cases are included in the database which is regularly updated. Training for 8 of the 16 clinical criteria is available in the program: "Surface luster"; "Staining (surface, margins)"; "Color match and translucency"; "Esthetic anatomical form"; "Fracture of material and retention"; "Marginal adaptation"; "Recurrence of caries, erosion, abfraction"; and "Tooth integrity (enamel cracks, tooth fractures)". Typical clinical cases are presented for each of these eight criteria and their corresponding five scores.
authors.affiliation: Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Germany. hickel@dent.med.uni-muenchen.de
authors.forename: Reinhard
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Hickel
authors.forename: Arnd
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Peschke
authors.forename: Martin
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Tyas
authors.forename: Ivar
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Mjör
authors.forename: Stephen
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Bayne
authors.forename: Mathilde
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Peters
authors.forename: Karl-Anton
authors.initials: KA
authors.lastname: Hiller
authors.forename: Ross
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Randall
authors.forename: Guido
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Vanherle
authors.forename: Siegward D
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: Heintze
mesh_terms: D019985:Benchmarking; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D019554:Dental Restoration Wear; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000592:standards*; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D006801:Humans; D007390:International Agencies; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D012953:Societies, Dental