FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations—update and clinical examples
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Hickel, R., Peschke, A., Tyas, M. et al. Clin Oral Invest (2010) 14: 349. doi:10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8
- 1.5k Downloads
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 has 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 eight of the 16 clinical criteria is available in the program: “Surface lustre”; “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.