| Literature DB >> 33037372 |
Avijit Banerjee1, Christian Splieth2, Lorenzo Breschi3, Margherita Fontana4, Sebastian Paris5, Michael Burrow6, Felicity Crombie7, Lyndie Foster Page8, Patricia Gatón-Hernández9, Rodrigo A Giacaman10, Neeraj Gugnani11, Reinhard Hickel12, Rainer A Jordan13, Soraya Leal14, Edward Lo6, Hervé Tassery15, William Murray Thomson8, David J Manton16, Falk Schwendicke5.
Abstract
Objectives To define an expert Delphi consensus on when to intervene in the caries process and existing carious lesions.Methods Non-systematic literature synthesis, expert Delphi consensus process and expert panel conference.Results Lesion activity, cavitation and cleansability determine intervention thresholds. Inactive lesions do not require treatment (in some cases, restorations may be placed for form, function, aesthetics); active lesions do. Non-cavitated carious lesions should be managed non- or micro-invasively, as should most cavitated lesions which are cleansable. Cavitated lesions which are not cleansable usually require minimally invasive management. In specific circumstances, mixed interventions may be applicable. Occlusally, cavitated lesions confined to enamel/non-cavitated lesions extending radiographically into deep dentine may be exceptions. Proximally, cavitation is hard to assess tactile-visually. Most lesions extending radiographically into the middle/inner third of dentine are assumed to be cavitated. Those restricted to the enamel are not cavitated. For lesions extending radiographically into the outer third of dentine, cavitation is unlikely. These lesions should be managed as if they were non-cavitated unless otherwise indicated. Individual decisions should consider factors modifying these thresholds.Conclusions Comprehensive diagnosis is the basis for systematic decision-making on when to intervene in the caries process and existing lesions.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33037372 DOI: 10.1038/s41415-020-2220-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br Dent J ISSN: 0007-0610 Impact factor: 1.626