Neurotic personality trait as a predictor in the prognosis of composite restorations: A 24-month clinical follow up study

Sulthan Ibrahim Raja Khan 1, Dinesh Rao 2, Anupama Ramachandran 3, Bhaskaran Veni Ashok 4, Jagan Kumar Baskaradoss 5

Affiliations

doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-96229-3

Abstract

The role of personality traits in modulating the incidence and progression of medical disease conditions are well documented, however, there is a paucity of information for its effects on dental health conditions and specifically on the prognosis of restorative dental materials. This study aims to evaluate the clinical performance of Micro-hybrid and Nano-ceramic composite restorations among patients with different personality traits. A total of 323 patients, indicated to receive operative treatment at a University Dental College Hospital, were invited to participate in this study. Consenting patients were requested to complete the Big Five Inventory (BFI-44 Item) personality questionnaire and were evaluated by a psychiatrist for categorizing the participants based on their personality traits. Out of the recruited patients, 124 patients falling in to the dominant trait of Agreeableness (n = 62) and Neuroticism (n = 62) were included in the study for further investigation. Next, patients from the Agreeableness (Group A) and the Neuroticism personality trait group (Group N) were randomly divided into two subgroups each-sub group Am (n = 44) and Nm (n = 48) for Micro-hybrid composite restorations and Sub group An (n = 42) and Nn (n = 47) for Nano-ceramic composite restorations. Two trained and calibrated dentists prepared the cavities according to previously published methodology. The restorations were evaluated at baseline (immediately after restoration), 6-months, 12-months and 24-months intervals by two blinded independent dental professionals for anatomical form, secondary caries, color match, retention, marginal adaptation, surface texture, marginal discoloration and post-operative sensitivity. There is no statistically significant difference noted in various parameters of restoration performance between Micro-hybrid composite and Nano-ceramic composite compared among 'agreeableness' personality group and among 'neuroticism' personality group after controlling the personality trait factor. Higher 'Neuroticism' individuals had higher restoration deterioration in color matching and surface texture when compared to higher 'Agreeableness' trait individuals. Regression analysis showed no effect of gender or cavity size on the outcome of results. Assessment of personality traits may serve as a useful tool during treatment planning which would aid clinicians in choosing suitable restorative dental material and prosthesis design according to individual patient's physiological and functional needs, thereby overall improving the quality of treatment provided.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

Similar articles

NIH NLM Logo

Log in

 


 

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation

pubmed logo

Search:0 results are available, use up and down arrow keys to navigate.Search

Advanced

User Guide

Search results

SaveEmail

Send to

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Display options

 Abstract PubMed PMID 

full text links

full text provider logo

actions

Cite

Collections

 

share

  •  
  •  

 

page navigation

 Title & authors Abstract Conflict of interest statement Similar articles References MeSH terms Substances Related information LinkOut - more resources 

Sci Rep

  •  
  •  
  •  

. 2021 Aug 25;11(1):17179.

doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-96229-3.

Neurotic personality trait as a predictor in the prognosis of composite restorations: A 24-month clinical follow up study

Sulthan Ibrahim Raja Khan 1, Dinesh Rao 2, Anupama Ramachandran 3, Bhaskaran Veni Ashok 4, Jagan Kumar Baskaradoss 5

Affiliations expand

Free PMC article

Abstract

The role of personality traits in modulating the incidence and progression of medical disease conditions are well documented, however, there is a paucity of information for its effects on dental health conditions and specifically on the prognosis of restorative dental materials. This study aims to evaluate the clinical performance of Micro-hybrid and Nano-ceramic composite restorations among patients with different personality traits. A total of 323 patients, indicated to receive operative treatment at a University Dental College Hospital, were invited to participate in this study. Consenting patients were requested to complete the Big Five Inventory (BFI-44 Item) personality questionnaire and were evaluated by a psychiatrist for categorizing the participants based on their personality traits. Out of the recruited patients, 124 patients falling in to the dominant trait of Agreeableness (n = 62) and Neuroticism (n = 62) were included in the study for further investigation. Next, patients from the Agreeableness (Group A) and the Neuroticism personality trait group (Group N) were randomly divided into two subgroups each-sub group Am (n = 44) and Nm (n = 48) for Micro-hybrid composite restorations and Sub group An (n = 42) and Nn (n = 47) for Nano-ceramic composite restorations. Two trained and calibrated dentists prepared the cavities according to previously published methodology. The restorations were evaluated at baseline (immediately after restoration), 6-months, 12-months and 24-months intervals by two blinded independent dental professionals for anatomical form, secondary caries, color match, retention, marginal adaptation, surface texture, marginal discoloration and post-operative sensitivity. There is no statistically significant difference noted in various parameters of restoration performance between Micro-hybrid composite and Nano-ceramic composite compared among 'agreeableness' personality group and among 'neuroticism' personality group after controlling the personality trait factor. Higher 'Neuroticism' individuals had higher restoration deterioration in color matching and surface texture when compared to higher 'Agreeableness' trait individuals. Regression analysis showed no effect of gender or cavity size on the outcome of results. Assessment of personality traits may serve as a useful tool during treatment planning which would aid clinicians in choosing suitable restorative dental material and prosthesis design according to individual patient's physiological and functional needs, thereby overall improving the quality of treatment provided.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

10 year comparison of glass ionomer and composite resin restoration materials in class 1 and 2 cavities.

Hutchison C, Cave V.Evid Based Dent. 2019 Dec;20(4):113-114. doi: 10.1038/s41432-019-0059-9.PMID: 31863046

Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner.

Efes BG, Dörter C, Gömeç Y, Koray F.J Adhes Dent. 2006 Apr;8(2):119-26.PMID: 16708724 Clinical Trial.

Quality and Survival of Direct Light-Activated Composite Resin Restorations in Posterior Teeth: A 5- to 20-Year Retrospective Longitudinal Study.

Borgia E, Baron R, Borgia JL.J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan;28(1):e195-e203. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12630. Epub 2017 May 17.PMID: 28513897 Review.

Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations.

Yazici AR, Ustunkol I, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B.Oper Dent. 2014 May-Jun;39(3):248-55. doi: 10.2341/13-221-C.PMID: 24754716

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth.

Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 31;(3):CD005620. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub2.PMID: 24683067 Updated. Review.

KMEL References

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

References

  1.  
    1. Jorgić-Srdjak K, Ivezić S, Cekić-Arambasin A, Bosnjak A. Bruxism and psychobiological model of personality. CollAntropol. 1998;22:205–212. - PubMed
  2.  
    1. MohamadiHasel K, Besharat MA, Abdolhoseini A, AlaeiNasab S, Niknam S. Relationships of personality factors to perceived stress, depression, and oral lichen planus severity. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2013;20(2):286–292. doi: 10.1007/s12529-012-9226-5. - DOI - PubMed
  3.  
    1. McCrae RR, Costa PT, Jr, Pedroso de Lima M, Simões A, Ostendorf F, Angleitner A, Marusić I, Bratko D, Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Chae JH, Piedmont RL. Age differences in personality across the adult life span: Parallels in five cultures. Dev. Psychol. 1999;35(2):466–477. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.466. - DOI - PubMed
  4.  
    1. Costa PT, Jr, McCrae RR. Neuroticism, somatic complaints, and disease: Is the bark worse than the bite? J. Pers. 1987;55(2):299–316. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00438.x. - DOI - PubMed
  5.  
    1. Goldberg LR. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment. 1992;4(1):26–42. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.2. - DOI
  6.  
    1. Widiger TA, Oltmanns JR. Neuroticism is a fundamental domain of personality with enormous public health implications. World Psychiatry. 2017;16(2):144–145. doi: 10.1002/wps.20411. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  7.  
    1. Malouff JM, Thorsteinsson EB, Schutte NS. The relationship between the five-factor model of personality and symptoms of clinical disorders: A meta-analysis. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2005;27:101–114. doi: 10.1007/s10862-005-5384-y. - DOI
  8.  
    1. Löckenhoff CE, Duberstein PR, Friedman B, Costa PT., Jr Five-factor personality traits and subjective health among caregivers: The role of caregiver strain and self-efficacy. Psychol. Aging. 2011;26(3):592–604. doi: 10.1037/a0022209. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  9.  
    1. Cruz-Fierro N, Martínez-Fierro M, Cerda-Flores RM, Gómez-Govea MA, Delgado-Enciso I, Martínez-De-Villarreal LE, et al. The phenotype, psychotype and genotype of bruxism. Biomed. Rep. 2018;8(3):264–268. - PMC - PubMed
  10.  
    1. Beier US, Kapferer I, Dumfahrt H. Clinical long-term evaluation and failure characteristics of 1,335 all-ceramic restorations. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2012;25(1):70–78. - PubMed
  11.  
    1. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Influence of specimen diameter on the relationship between subsurface depth and hardness of a light-cured resin composite. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2003;111(6):543–546. doi: 10.1111/j.0909-8836.2003.00077.x. - DOI - PubMed
  12.  
    1. Browning WD, Dennison JB. A survey of failure modes in composite resin restorations. Oper. Dent. 1996;21(4):160–166. - PubMed
  13.  
    1. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2003;134:1382–1390. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0054. - DOI - PubMed
  14.  
    1. Hegde MN, Hegde P, Bhandary S, Deepika K. An evalution of compressive strength of newer nanocomposite: An in vitro study. J. Conserv. Dent. 2011;14(1):36–39. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.80734. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  15.  
    1. Pontes LF, Alves EB, Alves BP, Ballester RY, Dias CG, Silva CM. Mechanical properties of nanofilled and microhybrid composites cured by different light polymerization modes. Gen. Dent. 2013;61(3):30–33. - PubMed
  16.  
    1. Maran BM, de Geus JL, Gutiérrez MF, Heintze S, Tardem C, Barceleiro MO, Reis A, Loguercio AD. Nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid resin-based composite in patients with direct restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2020;99:103407. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103407. - DOI - PubMed
  17.  
    1. Angerame D, De Biasi M. Do nanofilled/nanohybrid composites allow for better clinical performance of direct restorations than traditional microhybrid composites? A Systematic Review. Oper. Dent. 2018;43(4):E191–E209. doi: 10.2341/17-212-L. - DOI - PubMed
  18.  
    1. John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL. The Big Five Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research; 1991.
  19.  
    1. Thalmayer AG, Saucier G, Eigenhuis A. Comparative validity of brief to medium-length big five and big six personality questionnaires. Psychol. Assess. 2011;23(4):995–1009. doi: 10.1037/a0024165. - DOI - PubMed
  20.  
    1. Schmitt DP, Allik J, McCrae RR, Benet-Martínez V. The geographic distribution of big five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2007;38(2):173–212. doi: 10.1177/0022022106297299. - DOI
  21.  
    1. Narayanan L, Menon S, Levine EL. Personality structure: A culture-specific examination of the five-factor model. J. Personal. Assessment. 1995;64(1):51–62.
  22.  
    1. Hofstede G, McCrae RR. Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cult. Res. 2004;38(1):52–88. doi: 10.1177/1069397103259443. - DOI
  23.  
    1. Balaji V, Indradevi R. An empirical study on relationship between dark triad of personality traits and big five personality traits among general adult population—An Indian experience. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 2015;48:332–338.
  24.  
    1. Juhasz G, Chase D, Pegg E, et al. CNR1 gene is associated with high neuroticism and low agreeableness and interacts with recent negative life events to predict current depressive symptoms. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2009;34:2019–2027. doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.19. - DOI - PubMed
  25.  
    1. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho LE, Busato AL. One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations. Oper. Dent. 2001;26(5):427–434. - PubMed
  26.  
    1. Türkün LS, Türkün M, Ozata F. Two-year clinical evaluation of a packable resin-based composite. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2003;134(9):1205–1212. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0355. - DOI - PubMed
  27.  
    1. Sadeghi M, Lynch CD, Shahamat N. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations. J. Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(7):532–537. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02073.x. - DOI - PubMed
  28.  
    1. Cetin AR, Unlu N. One-year clinical evaluation of direct nanofilled and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. Dent. Mater. J. 2009;28(5):620–626. doi: 10.4012/dmj.28.620. - DOI - PubMed
  29.  
    1. Goodwin RD, Friedman HS. Health status and the five-factor personality traits in a nationally representative sample. J. Health Psychol. 2006;11(5):643–654. doi: 10.1177/1359105306066610. - DOI - PubMed
  30.  
    1. Thomson WM, Caspi A, Poulton R, Moffitt TE, Broadbent JM. Personality and oral health. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2011;119(5):366–372. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2011.00840.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  31.  
    1. Yavagal PC, Singla H. Prevalence of dental caries based on personality types of 35–44 years old residents in Davangere city. J. Oral BiolCraniofac. Res. 2017;7(1):32–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2016.09.004. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  32.  
    1. Schirrmeister JF, Huber K, Hellwig E, Hahn P. Two-year evaluation of a new nano-ceramic restorative material. Clin. Oral Investig. 2006;10(3):181–186. doi: 10.1007/s00784-006-0048-1. - DOI - PubMed
  33.  
    1. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore memorial lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper. Dent. 2004;29(5):481–508. - PubMed
  34.  
    1. Kubo S, Kawasaki A, Hayashi Y. Factors associated with the longevity of resin composite restorations. Dent. Mater. J. 2011;30(3):374–383. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2010-191. - DOI - PubMed
  35.  
    1. Kubo S. Longevity of resin composite restorations. Jpn. Dent. Sci. Rev. 2011;47(1):43–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2010.05.002. - DOI
  36.  
    1. Palaniappan S, Elsen L, Lijnen I, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations. Clin. Oral Investig. 2010;14(4):441–458. doi: 10.1007/s00784-009-0313-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  37.  
    1. Turssi CP, De MoraesPurquerio B, Serra MC. Wear of dental resin composites: Insights into underlying processes and assessment methods–a review. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B ApplBiomater. 2003;65(2):280–285. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.10563. - DOI - PubMed
  38.  
    1. Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Chewing pressure vs wear of composites and opposing enamel cusps. J. Dent. Res. 1992;71(8):1525–1529. doi: 10.1177/00220345920710081201. - DOI - PubMed
  39.  
    1. Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G. Quantitative in vivo wear of human enamel. J. Dent. Res. 1989;68:1752–1754. doi: 10.1177/00220345890680120601. - DOI - PubMed
  40.  
    1. Khan SIR, Rao D, Ramachandran A, Ashok BV. Influence of personality traits on the intensity of maximum voluntary bite force in adults. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2020;31(5):706–711. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_517_19. - DOI - PubMed
  41.  
    1. Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Fischer NG, Nojiri K, Nagura Y, Takamizawa T, Latta MA, Miazaki M. Wear of resin composites: Current insights into underlying mechanisms, evaluation methods and influential factors. Jpn. Dent. Sci. Rev. 2018;54(2):76–87. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2017.11.002. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  42.  
    1. Lee-Winn AE, Townsend L, Reinblatt SP, Mendelson T. Associations of neuroticism and impulsivity with binge eating in a nationally representative sample of adolescents in the United States. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2016;1(90):66–72. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.042. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  43.  
    1. Tasaka A, Kikuchi M, Nakanishi K, Ueda T, Yamashita S, Sakurai K. Psychological stress-relieving effects of chewing—Relationship between masticatory function-related factors and stress-relieving effects. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2018;62(1):50–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.05.003. - DOI - PubMed
  44.  
    1. Kim SK, Kim KN, Chang IT, Heo SJ. A study of the effects of chewing patterns on occlusal wear. J. Oral. Rehabil. 2001;28(11):1048–1055. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00761.x. - DOI - PubMed
  45.  
    1. Hu X, Marquis PM, Shortall AC. Two-body in vitro wear study of some current dental composites and amalgams. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1999;82(2):214–220. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70159-9. - DOI - PubMed
  46.  
    1. Yap AU, Teoh SH, Chew CL. Effects of cyclic loading on occlusal contact area wear of composite restoratives. Dent. Mater. 2002;18(2):149–158. doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(01)00034-3. - DOI - PubMed
  47.  
    1. Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM. Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in Class I and Class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. Oper. Dent. 2014;39(1):32–42. doi: 10.2341/12-313-C. - DOI - PubMed
  48.  
    1. Ehrmann E, Medioni E, Brulat-Bouchard N. Finishing and polishing effects of multiblade burs on the surface texture of 5 resin composites: microhardness and roughness testing. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2018;44(1):e1. doi: 10.5395/rde.2019.44.e1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  49.  
    1. Turiano NA, Whiteman SD, Hampson SE, Roberts BW, Mroczek DK. Personality and substance use in midlife: Conscientiousness as a moderator and the effects of trait change. J. Res. Pers. 2012;46(3):295–305. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.02.009. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
  50.  
    1. Villalta P, Lu H, Okte Z, Garcia-Godoy F, Powers JM. Effects of staining and bleaching on color change of dental composite resins. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2006;95(2):137–142. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.11.019. - DOI - PubMed
  51.  
    1. Koc D, Dogan A, Bek B. Bite force and influential factors on bite force measurements: A literature review. Eur. J. Dent. 2010;4(2):22. - PMC - PubMed

Page Navigation