Correlation of wear in vivo and six laboratory wear methods.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the correlation between clinical wear rates of restorative materials and enamel (TRAC Research Foundation, Provo, USA) and the results of six laboratory test methods (ACTA, Alabama (generalized, localized), Ivoclar (vertical, volumetric), Munich, OHSU (abrasion, attrition), Zurich). METHODS: Individual clinical wear data were available from clinical trials that were conducted by TRAC Research Foundation (formerly CRA) together with general practitioners. For each of the n=28 materials (21 composite resins for intra-coronal restorations [20 direct and 1 indirect], 5 resin materials for crowns, 1 amalgam, enamel) a minimum of 30 restorations had been placed in posterior teeth, mainly molars. The recall intervals were up to 5 years with the majority of materials (n=27) being monitored, however, only for up to 2 years. For the laboratory data, the databases MEDLINE and IADR abstracts were searched for wear data on materials which were also clinically tested by TRAC Research Foundation. Only those data for which the same test parameters (e.g. number of cycles, loading force, type of antagonist) had been published were included in the study. A different quantity of data was available for each laboratory method: Ivoclar (n=22), Zurich (n=20), Alabama (n=17), OHSU and ACTA (n=12), Munich (n=7). The clinical results were summed up in an index and a linear mixed model was fitted to the log wear measurements including the following factors: material, time (0.5, 1, 2 and 3 years), tooth (premolar/molar) and gender (male/female) as fixed effects, and patient as random effect. Relative ranks were created for each material and method; the same was performed with the clinical results. RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 40 (±12) years. The materials had been mostly applied in molars (81%) and 95% of the intracoronal restorations were Class II restorations. The mean number of individual wear data per material was 25 (range 14-42). The mean coefficient of variation of clinical wear data was 53%. The only significant correlation was reached by OHSU (abrasion) with a Spearman r of 0.86 (p=0.001). Zurich, ACTA, Alabama generalized wear and Ivoclar (volume) had correlation coefficients between 0.3 and 0.4. For Zurich, Alabama generalized wear and Munich, the correlation coefficient improved if only composites for direct use were taken into consideration. The combination of different laboratory methods did not significantly improve the correlation. SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical wear of composite resins is mainly dependent on differences between patients and less on the differences between materials. Laboratory methods to test conventional resins for wear are therefore less important, especially since most of them do not reflect the clinical wear.

Critical evaluation of outcome scales to assess outcome after lateral ankle ligament repair

Introduction: Several scores are commonly used to evaluate patients' postoperative satisfaction after lateral ankle ligament repair, including: AOFAS, FAAM, CAIT and CAIS. Comparing published studies in the literature is difficult, as the same patient can have markedly different results depending on which scoring system is used. The current study aims to address this gap in the literature by developing a system to compare these tests, to allow better analysis and comparison of published studies. Patients and methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 47 patients following lateral ankle ligament repair using a modified Broström-Gould technique. All patients were operated between 2005 and 2010 by a single surgeon and followed the same post operative rehabilitation protocol. Six patients were excluded from the study because of concomitant surgery. Patients were assessed by an independent observer. We used the Pearson correlation coefficient to analyse the concordance of the scores, as well as scatter plots to assess the linear relationship between them. Results: A linear distribution between the scores was found when the results were analysed using scatter plots. We were thus able to use the Pearson correlation coefficient to evaluate the relationship between each of the different postoperative scores. The correlation was found to be above 0.5 in all cases except for the comparison between the CAIT and the FAAM for the activities of daily living (0.39). We were, therefore, able to compare the results obtained and assess the relative concordance of the scoring systems. The results showed that the more specific the scale is, the worst the score is and inversely. So the CAIT and the CAIS appeared to be more severe than the AOFAS and the FAAM measuring the activities of daily living. The sports subscale of the FAAM demonstrated intermediate results. Conclusion: This study outlines a system to compare different postoperative scores commonly used to evaluate outcome after ankle stabilization surgery. The impact of this study is that it makes comparison of published studies easier, even though they use a variety of different clinical scores, thus facilitating better outcome analysis of operative techniques.