Comparison of Two Clinical Approaches Based on Visual Criteria for Secondary Caries Assessments and Treatment Decisions in Permanent Posterior Teeth

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2022 Mar 18

PMID 35300657

Authors

Cacia Signori

Juliana Lays Stolfo Uehara

Vitor Henrique Digmayer Romero

Bruna Lorena Pereira Moro

Mariana Minatel Braga

Fausto Medeiros Mendes

Maximiliano Sergio Cenci

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: This cross-sectional study aimed to compare two clinical approaches based on visual criteria for secondary caries assessments and treatment decisions in permanent posterior teeth.

Methods: The two clinical visual criteria tested for the assessments of restored teeth were: FDI criteria-based on the caries presence, marginal adaptation and staining criteria, adapted from the FDI (International Dental Federation) criteria and CARS criteria-"Caries Associated with Restorations or Sealants" (CARS) criteria described by the International Caries Classification and Management System. Adults were randomized according to the criteria. One calibrated examiner assessed the restorations and assigned the treatment according to the criteria. The primary outcome was replacement indication.

Results: A total of 185 patients were included, totalling 718 restorations. The strongest correlation founded between the methods was for the presence of caries lesions (Rho = 0.829). A moderate correlation (Rho = 0.420) was founded between the treatment decisions proposed by the CARS and by the FDI criteria. The multilevel regression analysis showed that the FDI criteria indicated five times more replacements when compared to the CARS (< 0.001). Also, using the FDI criteria restorations were 2.7 times more related to caries around restorations (p < 0.001) compared to the other criterion.

Conclusions: The visual criteria used on the restoration's assessment directly influences the treatment decision to intervene or not on the restoration. The use of a minimally invasive based approach for assessing secondary caries may prevent overtreatment.

Citing Articles

Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study.

Adly A, Ibrahim S, El-Zoghbi A BDJ Open. 2025; 11(1):2.

PMID: 39762230 PMC: 11704249. DOI: 10.1038/s41405-024-00284-7.

Impact of using bitewing radiographs alone or in combination with clinical information on treatment decisions.

Maydana G, Romero V, Signori C, Uehara J, Helene van de Sande F, Cenci M Braz Dent J. 2024; 35:e246005.

PMID: 39699493 PMC: 11654006. DOI: 10.1590/0103-644020246005.

Clinical, radiographic and biochemical assessment of proximal cavities restored with composite resin using incremental vs. bulk packing techniques: One-year randomized clinical trial.

Abdelaziz M, Fathy S, AlAraby A, Shehab W, Temirek M BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1162.

PMID: 39350180 PMC: 11443838. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04746-0.

Dental Composites with Magnesium Doped Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles Prevent Secondary Caries in the Alloxan-Induced Diabetic Model.

Tanweer T, Rana N, Saleem I, Shafique I, Alshahrani S, Almukhlifi H Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(24).

PMID: 36555575 PMC: 9785886. DOI: 10.3390/ijms232415926.

Dental Caries, Oral Health Behavior, and Living Conditions in 6-8-Year-Old Romanian School Children.

Dumitrescu R, Sava-Rosianu R, Jumanca D, Balean O, Damian L, Campus G Children (Basel). 2022; 9(6).

PMID: 35740840 PMC: 9222191. DOI: 10.3390/children9060903.

References

Kuper N, Opdam N, Ruben J, de Soet J, Cenci M, Bronkhorst E . Gap size and wall lesion development next to composite. J Dent Res. 2014; 93(7 Suppl):108S-113S. PMC: 4107545. DOI: 10.1177/0022034514534262. View

Kidd E, Beighton D . Prediction of secondary caries around tooth-colored restorations: a clinical and microbiological study. J Dent Res. 1996; 75(12):1942-6. DOI: 10.1177/00220345960750120501. View

Pallesen U, van Dijken J, Halken J, Hallonsten A, Hoigaard R . A prospective 8-year follow-up of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth of children and adolescents in Public Dental Health Service: reasons for replacement. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 18(3):819-27. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-1052-x. View

Pitts N, Ekstrand K . International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) and its International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS) - methods for staging of the caries process and enabling dentists to manage caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2014; 41(1):e41-52. DOI: 10.1111/cdoe.12025. View

Sheiham A . Minimal intervention in dental care. Med Princ Pract. 2002; 11 Suppl 1:2-6. DOI: 10.1159/000057772. View

Foster L . Validity of clinical judgements for the presence of secondary caries associated with defective amalgam restorations. Br Dent J. 1994; 177(3):89-93. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808518. View

Rodolpho P, Cenci M, Donassollo T, Loguercio A, Demarco F . A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent. 2005; 34(7):427-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.09.006. View

Opdam N, Bronkhorst E, Loomans B, Huysmans M . 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J Dent Res. 2010; 89(10):1063-7. DOI: 10.1177/0022034510376071. View

Deligeorgi V, Mjor I, Wilson N . An overview of reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations. Prim Dent Care. 2001; 8(1):5-11. DOI: 10.1308/135576101771799335. View

10.

van de Sande F, Opdam N, Rodolpho P, Correa M, Demarco F, Cenci M . Patient risk factors' influence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res. 2013; 92(7 Suppl):78S-83S. DOI: 10.1177/0022034513484337. View

11.

Moro B, Freitas R, Pontes L, Passaro A, Lenzi T, Tedesco T . Influence of different clinical criteria on the decision to replace restorations in primary teeth. J Dent. 2020; 101:103421. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103421. View

12.

Nedeljkovic I, de Munck J, Vanloy A, Declerck D, Lambrechts P, Peumans M . Secondary caries: prevalence, characteristics, and approach. Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 24(2):683-691. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02894-0. View

13.

Kidd E . The implications of the new paradigm of dental caries. J Dent. 2011; 39 Suppl 2:S3-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.11.004. View

14.

Dennison J, Sarrett D . Prediction and diagnosis of clinical outcomes affecting restoration margins. J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 39(4):301-18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02267.x. View

15.

Seemann R, Flury S, Pfefferkorn F, Lussi A, Noack M . Restorative dentistry and restorative materials over the next 20 years: a Delphi survey. Dent Mater. 2014; 30(4):442-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.013. View

16.

Moncada G, Vildosola P, Fernandez E, Estay J, De Oliveira Junior O, de Andrade M . Longitudinal results of a 10-year clinical trial of repair of amalgam restorations. Oper Dent. 2014; 40(1):34-43. DOI: 10.2341/14-045-C. View

17.

Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin M, Leroux B, Rue T, Leitao J . Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007; 138(6):775-83. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0265. View

18.

Signori C, Moro B, Uehara J, Romero V, Oliveira E, Braga M . Study protocol for a diagnostic randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of the use of two clinical criteria in the assessment of caries lesions around restorations in adults: the Caries Cognition and Identification in Adults (CaCIA) trial. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20(1):317. PMC: 7656731. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01307-z. View

19.

van de Sande F, Collares K, Correa M, Cenci M, Demarco F, Opdam N . Restoration Survival: Revisiting Patients' Risk Factors Through a Systematic Literature Review. Oper Dent. 2016; 41(S7):S7-S26. DOI: 10.2341/15-120-LIT. View

20.

Qudeimat M, Alomari Q, Altarakemah Y, Alshawaf N, Honkala E . Variables affecting the inter- and intra-examiner reliability of ICDAS for occlusal caries diagnosis in permanent molars. J Public Health Dent. 2015; 76(1):9-16. DOI: 10.1111/jphd.12105. View