Clinical decision-making in anterior resin composite restorations: a multicenter evaluation

Objective This study investigated whether a sample of anterior resin composite restorations could be differently evaluated in different centers of evaluation by clinical and lay evaluators. Methods Anterior resin composite restorations on high-quality intraoral digital photography were evaluated using FDI criteria (1-5 score) by pairs of clinical and lay evaluators in Brazil (BR), France (FR), Peru (PE), and the United States of America (USA). Scores were allocated as maintenance (1, 2, 3), repair (4) and replacement (5) when comparing clinical evaluators and, as acceptable (1, 2, 3) and unacceptable (4, 5) when comparing clinical vs. lay evaluators and lay vs. lay evaluators. The Chi-square test compared the frequencies of scores among the centers. Results The frequencies of maintaining, repairing, or replacing anterior resin composite restorations given by clinical evaluators varied depending on the evaluation center. BR and PE showed the highest frequencies for repair and replacement, while FR and USA showed the highest frequencies for maintenance. The comparison of frequencies of anterior resin composite restorations accepted or unaccepted by the clinical vs lay evaluators in the same centers showed a significantly higher frequency of acceptable dental restorations coming from clinical evaluators. Comparison between lay evaluators from different centers showed significant higher frequency of unacceptable dental restorations by BR, compared to other centers. Conclusions In the evaluation of anterior resin composite restorations, the maintenance, repair, or replacement trends can vary among different centers. The unacceptable rate came more frequently from lay than from clinical evaluators. Lay evaluators from different centers differed significantly. Clinical Significance Clinical and lay evaluators in distant evaluation centers can present different trends when assessing anterior resin composite restoration. Multicenter evaluations can help to understand such differences and it is important because clinical decision-making based on scientific evidence comes from clinical studies done in different research centers.