References

Cunningham J. Posterior composites: evaluations without trials?. J Dent. 1989; 17:S18-S21
Norman RD, Wright JS, Rydberg RD, Felkner LL. A five-year study comparing a posterior composite resin and an amalgam. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64:523-529
Letzel H. Survival rates and reasons for failure of posterior composite restorations in a multicentre clinical trial. J Dent. 1989; 17:S10-S17
Cunningham J, Mair LH, Foster MA, Ireland RS. Clinical evaluation of three posterior composite and two amalgam restorative materials. Br Dent J. 1990; 169::319-327
Alcaraz MGR, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejifor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult permanent teeth.: John Wiley and Sons, Limited; 2014
Agnihotry A, Federowicz Z, Nasser M. Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries.: John Wiley and Sons, Limited; 2016
Brocklehurst P, Hoare Z. How to design a randomised controlled trial. Br Dent J. 2017; 222:721-726
Hopper L, Morris L, Brocklehurst P, Tickla M. A qualitative investigation of the views of primary care dentists on participating in prospective studies in the North West of England. Br Dent J. 2011; 210
Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall RC, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Int Dent J. 2007; 57:300-302
Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2007; 11:E5-E33
Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9:121-147
Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 14:349-366
Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK. How long do direct restorations placed within the General Dental Services in England and Wales survive?. Br Dent J. 2009; 206
Laske M, Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst JM, Braspenning JCC, Huysmanns MCDNJM. Longevity of restorations in Dutch dental practices. Descriptive study out of a practice-based research network. J Dent. 2016; 46:12-17
Pallesen U, van Dijken JW, Halken J, Hallonsten A-L, Höigaard R. Longevity of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth in Public Dental Health Service: a prospective 8 years follow up. J Dent. 2013; 41:297-306
Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, Loguércio AD, Moraes RR, Bronkhorst EM 22-year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:955-963

End of the road for the randomized controlled trial in restorative dentistry?

From Volume 44, Issue 9, October 2017 | Pages 806-808

Authors

Article

Satisfactory survival of restorations is central to good practice, not only because unfulfilled patient expectations may lead to adverse medicolegal circumstances, but also because third party funders, managers and governments may also be inquisitive as to the performance of clinicians in their pay. However, there seems to be an obsession among researchers with the Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (RCCT), and, ok, it is the internationally recognized gold standard. The problem is that the RCCT was designed for medicine and the pharmaceutical industry and not specifically for dentistry, where funding is less and the prescription of a drug or treatment is not so often a matter of life or death, as it may be in medicine, surgery or pharmacy. Another problem is that RCCTs are necessarily expensive, given that these should generally continue for a minimum of five years, with sufficient numbers of patients to satisfy a power calculation.

Manufacturers of dental materials and other funders generally appear reluctant to fund RCCTs into the applied performance of dental materials and restorations. Why? Firstly, as mentioned above, they are expensive and the income from the life of a given dental material is not likely to bring in the profits accrued from a lifetime of (comparatively higher) sales of a successful new drug being marketed in the pharmaceutical industry. Add to that the difficulties and time in recruiting suitable patients, and then placing the restorations, plus the time spent in actually commissioning and organizing the programme.1 All of this means, according to Cunningham, that it might be well over six years before a 5-year date is ready for analysis.1

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available