Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBayne, Stephen C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSchmalz, Gottfrieden_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-09-11T19:29:29Z
dc.date.available2006-09-11T19:29:29Z
dc.date.issued2005-12en_US
dc.identifier.citationBayne, Stephen C.; Schmalz, Gottfried; (2005). "Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials." Clinical Oral Investigations 9(4): 209-214. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/47873>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1432-6981en_US
dc.identifier.issn1436-3771en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/47873
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16421996&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en_US
dc.format.extent108397 bytes
dc.format.extent3115 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherSpringer-Verlagen_US
dc.subject.otherRestorative Proceduresen_US
dc.subject.otherStandardsen_US
dc.subject.otherDental Materialsen_US
dc.subject.otherClinical Evaluationen_US
dc.subject.otherEvaluator Calibrationen_US
dc.titleReprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materialsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelDentistryen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Cariology, Restorative Sciences, and Endodontics School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, 1011 North University, Room 2355, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1078, USA,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, University of Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauβ-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany,en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampusAnn Arboren_US
dc.identifier.pmid16421996en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/47873/1/784_2005_Article_17.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0017-0en_US
dc.identifier.sourceClinical Oral Investigationsen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record