Clinical evaluation
fracture, caries, pain, tooth, NRS
RECURRENCE, CARIES, SECONDARY, HEAT, COLD
The postoperative sensitivity was evaluated over seven days, by the patients themselves, using two scales. A numerical rating scale (NRS), with five categories of how much sensitivity each tooth had [0 (none), 1 (mild), 2 (moderate), 3 (considerable), or 4 (severe)], and a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), a 100 mm long straight line with scores 0 (no sensitivity) and 100 (unbearable pain) at each end. The patient was instructed to mark where their postoperative sensitivity was located along this spectrum. The patient got a form for each restored tooth, with the two scales replicated seven times, and was instructed to mark the specific day of the record of sensitivity and indicate whether it was spontaneous or stimulated. In the case of stimulated sensitivity, they were asked to indicate the cause of the sensitivity (i.e., chewing, heat, cold, or another stimulus).Two experienced and calibrated examiners (L.P. and R.B.), not involved in the restorative procedures, evaluated the restorations according to different functional, esthetical, and biological properties present in the World Dental Federation criteria (FDI)The primary outcome was fracture and retention, and the secondary outcomes were marginal adaptation, proximal contact quality (for class II restorations), patient’s perception, marginal staining, color match, anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity, and recurrence of caries. The proximal contact and cervical adaptation for class II restorations were evaluated using dental floss and bitewing radiography when examiners considered it necessary. Variables were ranked following the FDI criteria categories: clinically very good, clinically good, clinically sufficient/satisfactory, clinically unsatisfactory but repairable, and clinically poor where replacement is required. Both examiners evaluated all restorations once and independently, reaching a consensus before the participant was dismissed.All restorations scored as clinically unsatisfactory or poor by FDI criteria at one recall were accounted as a cumulative failure at the next follow-up evaluation. Each failed restoration was replaced with a new composite resin restoration.