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

Authors

  • Manja von Stein-Lausnitz Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Berlin, Germany;
  • Daniel R. Reissmann Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany;
  • Matthias J. Roggendorf Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Medical Center for Dentistry, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Campus Marburg, Marburg, Germany
  • Guido Sterzenbach Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Berlin, Germany;
  • Michael Naumann Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Berlin, Germany;

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2018.1497804

Keywords:

Endodontic post, endodontically treated teeth, long-term clinical trial, post-endodontic restorations, self-report

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2019-01-02