JDR Woodhead Publishing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hewlett, E. R.
Right arrow Articles by Flack, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hewlett, E. R.
Right arrow Articles by Flack, V.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol 72, 1604-1608, Copyright © 1993 by International & American Associations for Dental Research Online Journals

ARTICLES

Radiographic secondary caries prevalence in teeth with clinically defective restorations

E. R. Hewlett, K. A. Atchison, S. C. White and V. Flack
UCLA School of Dentistry 90024-1668.

Decisions to replace existing restorations are often based on clinical findings of margin discrepancies and other restoration defects. Previous studies have suggested that such findings do not correlate well with the actual presence of secondary caries, and that treatment should be deferred until caries is clinically or radiographically evident. The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency with which clinically defective restorations are associated with radiographic secondary caries. As part of a study to assess the efficacy of guidelines for the ordering of dental radiographs, 6285 restored teeth in 490 subjects were examined clinically and radiographically by three calibrated investigators. Specific criteria were used to determine whether restorations were intact or defective. Of the total, 822 teeth (13%) were judged to have clinically defective restorations. Of these, 113 teeth (14%) had radiographic secondary caries. Of the 5463 teeth with intact restorations, 5% had radiographic secondary caries. We found that the likelihood of radiographic secondary caries was nearly three-fold higher for defective restorations than for intact restorations. The large percentage (86%) of defective restorations with no radiographic secondary caries suggests, however, that replacement of all defective restorations due to risk of secondary caries may constitute overtreatment. The use of defective restoration status and presence of radiographic secondary caries as a combined criterion for replacement may potentially reduce such overtreatment. The prevalence of secondary caries under defective restorations should be determined clinically so that the usefulness of combining the criteria of defective restoration with those of radiographic secondary caries can be evaluated.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
IADR Journals Advances in Dental Research ®
Journal of Dental Research ® Critical Reviews (1990-2004)
Copyright © 1993 Institutional Access Guidelines