Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials

  • Review
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The original article published by Cvar and Ryge in 1971 on the US Public Health Service (USPHS) Guidelines is virtually inaccessible to current scientists, despite its remarkable impact on clinical dental research. The original article described all the pilot studies that led to the choices for the final USPHS guidelines. However, many of the important basic ideas expressed in the original article, such as evaluator calibration, have been overlooked in recent years. Challenges for effective clinical testing of restorative procedures and materials that were emphasized by those authors are even more relevant today. Therefore, it is totally appropriate to republish the original article by Cvar and Ryge in this issue of Clinical Oral Investigations. This preface to the republication of the original article provides key background information and references to contributions by the many now-famous clinical investigators who were involved with pilot studies. In addition, the USPHS recommendations are critically reviewed. Clinical evaluation of restorative procedures requires (a) choices of clinically relevant criteria, (b) assessment using simple nominal scales, (c) calibration of evaluators, (d) two independent evaluations, and (e) nonparametric statistic analysis that recognizes the patient (and not the restoration) as the independent variable. Only portions of those procedures are being preserved in current clinical investigations. USPHS criteria continue in use until today as part of routine clinical evaluation and as components of standards programs such as the ADA acceptance program. However, in addition, USPHS-like criteria have been appended over the years to produce “modified USPHS guidelines.” These additional criteria include parameters such as postoperative sensitivity, fracture, interproximal contact, occlusal contact, and others. The combination of the original and modified USPHS criteria now have been accepted worldwide but are not necessarily uniformly applied. They constitute the foundation for current considerations of further development of clinical assessment methods for dental restorative procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs (1989) American Dental Association acceptance program guidelines: composite resins for posterior restorations. American Dental Association, Chicago, pp 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  2. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs (1996) American Dental Association acceptance program guidelines: restorative materials. American Dental Association, Chicago, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  3. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs (1998) American Dental Association acceptance program guidelines: products for treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity. American Dental Association, Chicago, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  4. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs (1998) American Dental Association acceptance program guidelines: home use tooth-whitening products. American Dental Association, Chicago, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  5. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs (2001) Revised American Dental Association acceptance program guidelines: dentin and enamel adhesives. American Dental Association, Chicago, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  6. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs (2001) American Dental Association acceptance program guidelines: composite resins for posterior restorations. American Dental Association, Chicago, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bader JD, Shugars DA, Rozier G, Lohr KN, Bonito AJ, Nelson JP, Jackman AM (2001) Diagnosis and management of dental caries. Evid Rep Technol Assess 36:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cantor R, Webber RL, Stroud L, Ryge G (1969) Methods for evaluating facial prosthetic materials. J Prosthet Dent 21:324–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cvar J, Ryge G (1971) Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. US DHEW Document, US PHS 790244, Printing Office, San Francisco, pp 1–42

  10. Jendresen MD, Phillips RW (1968) A clinical comparison of four posterior intermediate restorative materials. Technical report SAM-TR Dec, pp 1–10

  11. Ryge G (1966) Clinical evaluation of adhesive restorative materials. In: Austin RH, Wilsdorf HGF, Phillips RW (eds) Adhesive restorative dental materials II. Proceedings of a workshop held at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, December 8–9, 1965. National Institute of Dental Research, Public Health Service Publication No 1494

  12. Ryge G (1977) Development of clinical testing of materials. In: RG Craig (ed) Dental materials review. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 192–204

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 35:347–358

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ryge G, DeVincenzi RG (1983) Assessment of the clinical quality of health care. Search for a reliable method. Eval Health Prof 6:311–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ryge G, Snyder M (1973) Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 87:369–377

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ryge G, Jendresen MD, Glantz PO, Mjor I (1981) Standardization of clinical investigators for studies of restorative materials. Swed Dent J 5:235–239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilder AD, May KN, Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Leinfelder KF (1999) Seventeen-year clinical study of ultraviolet-cured posterior composite Class I and II restorations. J Esthet Dent 11:135–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zerhouni E (2003) Medicine. NIH Roadmap. Science 302:63–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are sincerely indebted to Dr. Joe Moffa, Dr. Richard Webber, Dr. Mal Jendresen, Dr. Albert Guckes, and Dr. Larry Gettleman for providing background and sharing their own personal experiences in the preparation of this special introduction.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen C. Bayne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bayne, S.C., Schmalz, G. Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest 9, 209–214 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0017-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0017-0

Keywords

Navigation