A comparative evaluation between the reliability of gypsum casts and digital greyscale intra-oral scans for the scoring of tooth wear using the Tooth Wear Evaluation System (TWES).
assessment tools
dental casts
digital casts
grading scales
reliability
tooth wear
tooth wear evaluation system (TWES)
Journal
Journal of oral rehabilitation
ISSN: 1365-2842
Titre abrégé: J Oral Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0433604
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
revised:
21
12
2020
received:
22
11
2020
accepted:
22
12
2020
pubmed:
29
12
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
28
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Tooth Wear Evaluation System (TWES) is a type of tooth wear index. To date, there is the lack of data comparing the reliability of the application of this index on gypsum cast records and digital greyscale intra-oral scan records. A comparative evaluation between the use of gypsum cast records and digital greyscale intra-oral scan records with the reliability of tooth wear scoring using the TWES amongst a group of patients with tooth wear. Records for 10 patients with moderate to severe tooth wear (TWES ≥ 2) were randomly selected from a larger clinical trial. TWES grading of the occlusal/incisal, buccal and palatal/lingual surfaces was performed to determine the levels of intra- and interobserver agreement. Intra-observer reproducibility was based on the findings of one examiner only. For the interobserver reproducibility, the findings of two examiners were considered. One set of models/ records were used per patient. Cohen's weighted kappa (κ For the scoring of the of the total occlusal/incisal surfaces, the overall levels of intra- and interobserver agreement were significantly higher using the gypsum cast records than with the digital greyscale intra-oral scan records, (P < .001) and (P < .001), respectively. For the overall buccal surfaces, only a significant difference was found in the intra-observer agreement using gypsum casts, (P = .013). For the palatal/lingual surfaces, a significant difference was only reported in the interobserver agreement using gypsum casts, (P = .043). At the occlusal/incisal surfaces, grading performed using gypsum casts, culminated in significantly higher TWES scores than with the use of the digital greyscale intra-oral scans (P < .001). At the buccal and palatal/lingual surfaces, significantly higher wear scores were obtained using digital greyscale intra-oral scan records (P < .009). The TWES can offer a reliable means for the scoring of wearing occlusal/incisal surfaces using gypsum casts. The reliability offered by digital greyscale intra-oral scans for consecutive scoring was in general, inferior.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Tooth Wear Evaluation System (TWES) is a type of tooth wear index. To date, there is the lack of data comparing the reliability of the application of this index on gypsum cast records and digital greyscale intra-oral scan records.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
A comparative evaluation between the use of gypsum cast records and digital greyscale intra-oral scan records with the reliability of tooth wear scoring using the TWES amongst a group of patients with tooth wear.
METHODS
METHODS
Records for 10 patients with moderate to severe tooth wear (TWES ≥ 2) were randomly selected from a larger clinical trial. TWES grading of the occlusal/incisal, buccal and palatal/lingual surfaces was performed to determine the levels of intra- and interobserver agreement. Intra-observer reproducibility was based on the findings of one examiner only. For the interobserver reproducibility, the findings of two examiners were considered. One set of models/ records were used per patient. Cohen's weighted kappa (κ
RESULTS
RESULTS
For the scoring of the of the total occlusal/incisal surfaces, the overall levels of intra- and interobserver agreement were significantly higher using the gypsum cast records than with the digital greyscale intra-oral scan records, (P < .001) and (P < .001), respectively. For the overall buccal surfaces, only a significant difference was found in the intra-observer agreement using gypsum casts, (P = .013). For the palatal/lingual surfaces, a significant difference was only reported in the interobserver agreement using gypsum casts, (P = .043). At the occlusal/incisal surfaces, grading performed using gypsum casts, culminated in significantly higher TWES scores than with the use of the digital greyscale intra-oral scans (P < .001). At the buccal and palatal/lingual surfaces, significantly higher wear scores were obtained using digital greyscale intra-oral scan records (P < .009).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The TWES can offer a reliable means for the scoring of wearing occlusal/incisal surfaces using gypsum casts. The reliability offered by digital greyscale intra-oral scans for consecutive scoring was in general, inferior.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33370476
doi: 10.1111/joor.13141
pmc: PMC8248338
doi:
Substances chimiques
Calcium Sulfate
WAT0DDB505
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
678-686Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Br Dent J. 2012 Sep;213(6):E10
pubmed: 22996509
J Oral Rehabil. 2008 Nov;35(11):821-6
pubmed: 18482343
Br Dent J. 2012 Jan 13;212(1):17-27
pubmed: 22240686
Br Dent J. 1984 Jun 23;156(12):435-8
pubmed: 6590081
J Oral Rehabil. 2021 Jun;48(6):678-686
pubmed: 33370476
J Oral Rehabil. 2016 Aug;43(8):615-20
pubmed: 27132187
Br Dent J. 2003 Feb 22;194(4):211-3; discussion 204
pubmed: 12627200
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
J Oral Rehabil. 2013 Mar;40(3):185-90
pubmed: 23278167
BMC Oral Health. 2016 Nov 3;16(1):115
pubmed: 27809895
Br Dent J. 2018 Mar 9;224(5):364-370
pubmed: 29495027
J Oral Rehabil. 2020 Jun;47(6):703-712
pubmed: 32274827
Br Dent J. 2018 Jun 22;224(12):957-961
pubmed: 29880974
Int J Prosthodont. 2009 Jul-Aug;22(4):388-90
pubmed: 19639077
Clin Oral Investig. 2008 Mar;12 Suppl 1:S65-8
pubmed: 18228057
Clin Oral Investig. 2008 Mar;12 Suppl 1:S15-9
pubmed: 18228055
J Oral Rehabil. 2015 Aug;42(8):600-4
pubmed: 25752246
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1991 Oct;19(5):286-90
pubmed: 1742995
J Dent. 2020 Jun;97:103342
pubmed: 32360512
J Dent. 2019 Feb;81:39-42
pubmed: 30578831
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Sep;22(7):2567-2573
pubmed: 29397468
Br Dent J. 2012 Aug;213(3):E4
pubmed: 22878338
Br Dent J. 2018 Mar 9;224(5):348-356
pubmed: 29495023
Caries Res. 2010;44(3):294-9
pubmed: 20516691
Int J Prosthodont. 2017 Mar/Apr;30(2):153-155
pubmed: 28267825
J Dent. 2016 Dec;55:48-53
pubmed: 27693780
J Adhes Dent. 2017;19(2):111-119
pubmed: 28439579
Br Dent J. 2005 Aug 13;199(3):143-5
pubmed: 16192950
Quintessence Int. 2014 Mar;45(3):259-64
pubmed: 24570994
Int J Prosthodont. 2016 Sep-Oct;29(5):514-21
pubmed: 27611759
J Oral Rehabil. 2016 Jan;43(1):69-80
pubmed: 26333037