ABSTRACT: Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the quality of the restorations in patients by modified USPHS and FDI criteria and photographic method. Materials and methods: Patients visiting outpatient clinic was recruited into the study. After consideration of inclusion and exclusion criteria 80 patients were examined for the quality of restoration. One experienced and trained dentist (Gold standard evaluator) examined the patients clinically and photographically using modified USPHS and FDI criteria. Two postgraduate students got trained to assess the restorations using the above two criteria and to obtain 85% agreement intra-examiner and inter-examiner. The photograph was taken using Canon SLR camera and projected on the HD television. The examiners evaluated the restorations independently without the knowledge of the answers of other evaluators. The restorations were then independently classified by the evaluators based on simplified FDI criteria: (0) no intervention (grades 1, 2, 3); (1) repair (grade 4); and (2) replacement (grade 5). Results: Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the clinical evaluation of restorations and their corresponding digital photographs when using the modified USPHS criteria, and although the use of FDI criteria yielded different results, these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The evaluation of restorations through digital images bring into line more closely with clinical assessments using the FDI criteria compared to the modified USPHS criteria. FDI criteria presented moderate to substrantial interrater reliablity and Modified USPHS criteria shows slight to fair interrater reliablity.
Gurram et al. (Thu,) studied this question.