RESUMEN
We aimed to evaluate the impact of 2 visual diagnostic strategies for assessing secondary caries and managing permanent posterior restorations on long-term survival. We conducted a diagnostic cluster-randomized clinical trial with 2 parallel groups using different diagnostic strategies: (C+AS) based on caries assessment, marginal adaptation, and marginal staining aspects of the FDI (World Dental Federation) criteria and (C) based on caries assessment using the Caries Associated with Restorations or Sealants (CARS) criteria described by the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS). The treatment for the restoration was conducted based on the decision made following the allocated diagnostic strategy. The restorations were then clinically reevaluated for up to 71 mo. The primary outcome was restoration failure (including tooth-level failure: pain, endodontic treatment, and extraction). Cox regression analyses with shared frailty were conducted in the intention-to-treat population, and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were derived. We included 727 restorations from 185 participants and reassessed 502 (69.1%) restorations during follow-up. The evaluations occurred between 6 and 71 mo. At baseline, C led to almost 4 times fewer interventions compared with the C+AS strategy. A total of 371 restorations were assessed in the C group, from which 31 (8.4%) were repaired or replaced. In contrast, the C+AS group had 356 restorations assessed, from which 113 (31.7%) were repaired or replaced. During follow-up, 34 (9.2%) failures were detected in the restorations allocated to the C group and 30 (8.4%) allocated to the C+AS group in the intention-to-treat population, with no significant difference between the groups (HR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.51 to 1.38; P = 0.435, C+AS as reference). In conclusion, a diagnostic strategy focusing on marginal defects results in more initial interventions but does not improve longevity over the caries-focused strategy, suggesting the need for more conservative approaches.