The International Caries Consensus Collaboration undertook a consensus process and here presents clinical recommendations for carious tissue removal and managing cavitated carious lesions, including restoration, based on texture of demineralized dentine. Dentists should manage the disease dental caries and control activity of existing cavitated lesions to preserve hard tissues and retain teeth long-term. Entering the restorative cycle should be avoided as far as possible. Controlling the disease in cavitated carious lesions should be attempted using methods which are aimed at biofilm removal or control first. Only when cavitated carious lesions either are noncleansable or can no longer be sealed are restorative interventions indicated. When a restoration is indicated, the priorities are as follows: preserving healthy and remineralizable tissue, achieving a restorative seal, maintaining pulpal health, and maximizing restoration success. Carious tissue is removed purely to create conditions for long-lasting restorations. Bacterially contaminated or demineralized tissues close to the pulp do not need to be removed. In deeper lesions in teeth with sensible (vital) pulps, preserving pulpal health should be prioritized, while in shallow or moderately deep lesions, restoration longevity becomes more important. For teeth with shallow or moderately deep cavitated lesions, carious tissue removal is performed according to selective removal to firm dentine. In deep cavitated lesions in primary or permanent teeth, selective removal to soft dentine should be performed, although in permanent teeth, stepwise removal is an option. The evidence and, therefore, these recommendations support less invasive carious lesion management, delaying entry to, and slowing down, the restorative cycle by preserving tooth tissue and retaining teeth long-term.

Variation in the terminology used to describe clinical management of carious lesions has contributed to a lack of clarity in the scientific literature and beyond. In this article, the International Caries Consensus Collaboration presents 1) issues around terminology, a scoping review of current words used in the literature for caries removal techniques, and 2) agreed terms and definitions, explaining how these were decided. Dental caries is the name of the disease, and the carious lesion is the consequence and manifestation of the disease—the signs or symptoms of the disease. The term dental caries management should be limited to situations involving control of the disease through preventive and noninvasive means at a patient level, whereas carious lesion management controls the disease symptoms at the tooth level. While it is not possible to directly relate the visual appearance of carious lesions’ clinical manifestations to the histopathology, we have based the terminology around the clinical consequences of disease (soft, leathery, firm, and hard dentine). Approaches to carious tissue removal are defined: 1) selective removal of carious tissue—including selective removal to soft dentine and selective removal to firm dentine; 2) stepwise removal—including stage 1, selective removal to soft dentine, and stage 2, selective removal to firm dentine 6 to 12 mo later; and 3) nonselective removal to hard dentine—formerly known as complete caries removal (technique no longer recommended). Adoption of these terms, around managing dental caries and its sequelae, will facilitate improved understanding and communication among researchers and within dental educators and the wider clinical dentistry community.

Background The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach was born 25 years ago in Tanzania. It has evolved into an essential caries management concept for improving quality and access to oral care globally. Results Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have indicated that the high effectiveness of ART sealants using high-viscosity glass ionomers in carious lesion development prevention is not different from that of resin fissure sealants. ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer can safely be used to restore single-surface cavities both in primary and in permanent posterior teeth, but its quality in restoring multiple surfaces in primary posterior teeth cavities needs to be improved. Insufficient information is available regarding the quality of ART restorations in multiple surfaces in permanent anterior and posterior teeth. There appears to be no difference in the survival of single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations and amalgam restorations. Discussion The use of ART results in smaller cavities and in high acceptance of preventive and restorative care by children. Because local anaesthesia is seldom needed and only hand instruments are used, ART is considered to be a promising approach for treating children suffering from early childhood caries. ART has been implemented in the public oral health services of a number of countries, and clearly, proper implementation requires the availability of sufficient stocks of good high-viscosity glass ionomers and sets of ART instruments right from the start. Textbooks including chapters on ART are available, and the concept is being included in graduate courses at dental schools in a number of countries. Recent development and testing of e-learning modules for distance learning has increasingly facilitated the distribution of ART information amongst professionals, thus enabling more people to benefit from ART. However, this development and further research require adequate funding, which is not always easily obtainable. The next major challenge is the continuation of care to the frail elderly, in which ART may play a part. Conclusion ART, as part of the Basic Package of Oral Care, is an important cornerstone for the development of global oral health and alleviating inequality in oral care.

The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic investigation plus meta-analysis into survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations using high-viscosity glass ionomers and to compare the results with those from the 2005 ART meta-analysis. Until February 2010, four databases were searched. Two hundred four publications were found, and 66 reported on ART restorations or sealant survival. Based on five exclusion criteria, two independent reviewers selected the 29 publications that accounted for the meta-analysis. Confidence intervals (CI) and or standard errors were calculated and the heterogeneity variance of the survival rates was estimated. Location (school/clinic) was an independent variable. The survival rates of single-surface and multiple-surface ART restorations in primary teeth over the first 2 years were 93% (CI, 91–94%) and 62% (CI, 51–73%), respectively; for single-surface ART restorations in permanent teeth over the first 3 and 5 years it was 85% (CI, 77–91%) and 80% (CI, 76–83%), respectively and for multiple-surface ART restorations in permanent teeth over 1 year it was 86% (CI, 59–98%). The mean annual dentine lesion incidence rate, in pits and fissures previously sealed using ART, over the first 3 years was 1%. No location effect and no differences between the 2005 and 2010 survival rates of ART restorations and sealants were observed. The short-term survival rates of single-surface ART restorations in primary and permanent teeth, and the caries-preventive effect of ART sealants were high. Clinical relevance: ART can safely be used in single-surface cavities in both primary and permanent teeth. ART sealants have a high caries preventive effect.

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of hypersensitivity in molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH)-affected molars through a census carried out in 8-year-old schoolchildren. Methods: Examinations were conducted by a calibrated examiner, using the Nyvad criteria for caries diagnosis and a new criterion for MIH assessment. For hypersensitivity assessment, all MIH-affected molars were included. Nonaffected molars from the same child were used as controls. Air blast reaction was measured using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Schiff Cold Air Sensitivity Scale (SCASS) scale, while tactile hypersensitivity was scored using VAS only. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s multiple comparisons test for quantitative data. χ² was used for the comparison of categorical data. Results: In total, 631 children were assessed, of whom 102 had MIH-affected molars (16.1%). Of these, 51.7 and 8.7% presented enamel and dentin carious lesions, respectively. Regarding the number of teeth, 239 molars were MIH affected (59.8%), with 188 (78.7%) being classified as mild (opacities only), 20 (8.4%) as moderate (posteruptive enamel breakdown), and 31 (13%) as severe (posteruptive breakdown involving dentin/atypical restorations). Hypersensitivity was recorded in only one control molar, while the prevalence of hypersensitivity in MIH-affected molars was 34.7%, being of low intensity and more prevalent in moderate (55%) and severe cases (51.6 %) than in mild cases (29.8%, p = 0.008). An association between hypersensitivity and the presence of mild and moderate cases was observed. Although the same association was observed for severe cases, it was not considered a reliable information as 90% of the MIH-affected molars with posteruptive breakdown involving dentin were affected by carious lesions. It is known that dental caries is a confounding factor for the presence of hypersensitivity. Conclusions: Hypersensitivity was significantly higher in MIH-affected molars than in nonaffected molars, being associated with MIH teeth presenting opacities and posteruptive enamel breakdown.