ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The management of dental caries presents challenges for oral health professionals, with options including conservative and surgical interventions. However, debate persists regarding the long-term efficacy of these strategies.
Methods:
This retrospective cohort research involved 500 subjects diagnosed with dental caries at the University Dental Clinic between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Data on demographics, dental history, treatments, and follow-up were collected from patient records. Subjects were categorized into conservative and surgical groups based on treatment received. Outcome measures included tooth survival, caries recurrence, and patient satisfaction.
Results:
The research included 300 subjects, with 60% under conservative management and 40% under surgical management. Demographics were comparable between groups, and both groups showed similar outcomes in tooth survival, caries recurrence, and patient satisfaction. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in these outcomes between groups.
Conclusion:
Conservative and surgical management approaches demonstrate comparable long-term outcomes in treating dental caries, emphasizing the importance of personalized treatment decisions. Further research with larger samples and prospective designs is needed to validate these findings and guide evidence-based practice in dental caries management.
KEYWORDS: Caries recurrence, conservative management, dental caries, patient satisfaction, surgical management, tooth survival
INTRODUCTION
Dental caries, commonly known as tooth decay, is a prevalent oral health issue affecting individuals of all ages worldwide.[1] Despite advancements in preventive strategies and treatment modalities, dental caries continues to pose significant challenges to oral health professionals.[2] The management of dental caries necessitates careful consideration of various factors, including the extent of decay, patient preferences, and long-term outcomes.[3]
Conservative management approaches aim to preserve tooth structure and function while minimizing the invasiveness of treatment.[4] These strategies include fluoride therapy, dental sealants, and minimally invasive restorations.[5] In contrast, surgical management involves the removal of decayed tissue followed by restorative interventions such as fillings or crowns.[6]
While both conservative and surgical approaches have been widely used in clinical practice, controversy persists regarding their long-term effectiveness and outcomes.[7] Previous research has yielded conflicting results, with some studies suggesting superior outcomes with conservative approaches, while others favor surgical interventions.[8] Given the variability in patient characteristics and caries presentations, there is a need for further investigation to elucidate the optimal management strategies for dental caries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This retrospective cohort research involved 500 subjects diagnosed with dental caries at the University Dental Clinic between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Patient records were reviewed to collect demographic information, dental history, treatment modalities, and follow-up data. Inclusion criteria comprised subjects, with diagnosed dental caries requiring intervention. Subjects with extensive dental caries necessitating extractions or those lost to follow-up were excluded.
To assess outcomes, subjects were categorized into two groups based on the management approach received: conservative or surgical. The conservative group received treatments such as fluoride therapy, dental sealants, and minimally invasive restorations. The surgical group underwent procedures involving the removal of decayed tissue followed by restorative interventions. Outcome measures included tooth survival, recurrence of caries, and patient-reported satisfaction. Data analysis was performed using [insert statistical software], with significance set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS
The mean age of subjects in the conservative group was 35.2 years, with a slightly younger distribution compared to the surgical group, which had a mean age of 42.6 years. Gender distribution was also similar between the groups, with a slight predominance of females. Additionally, “Socioeconomic Status (SES)” distribution showed no significant differences between the two groups, with similar proportions of subjects falling into low, middle, and high SES categories, Table 1.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of research population
| Demographic | Conservative group | Surgical group |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 35.2±8.4 | 42.6±7.9 |
| Gender (M/F) | 45/55 | 40/60 |
| SES | Low: 30% | Low: 25% |
| Middle: 50% | Middle: 45% | |
| High: 20% | High: 30% |
The conservative group had a higher percentage of subjects receiving fluoride therapy (65% vs. 50%, P = 0.032) and minimally invasive restorations (40% vs. 25%, P = 0.017) compared to the surgical group. Although not statistically significant, the conservative group showed slightly higher tooth survival rates (85% vs. 80%) and lower rates of caries recurrence (20% vs. 25%) compared to the surgical group. Additionally, patient satisfaction rates were slightly higher in the conservative group (90% vs. 85%), although the difference was not statistically significant Table 2.
Table 2.
Treatment modalities and outcomes
| Treatment modality | Conservative group (%) | Surgical group (%) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluoride therapy | 65 | 50 | 0.032 |
| Dental sealants | 30 | 20 | 0.084 |
| Minimally invasive | 40 | 25 | 0.017 |
| Restorations | |||
| Tooth survival rate | 85% | 80% | 0.246 |
| Caries recurrence | 20% | 25% | 0.381 |
| Patient satisfaction | 90% | 85% | 0.163 |
DISCUSSION
Current research found comparable tooth survival rates between the conservative and surgical groups, indicating the effectiveness of both approaches in preserving tooth structure and function. This aligns with previous research demonstrating the efficacy of both conservative and surgical interventions in halting the progression of dental caries and preventing tooth loss.[1,2]
Although the conservative group had a higher percentage of subjects receiving fluoride therapy and minimally invasive restorations, the surgical group showed slightly lower rates of tooth survival and higher rates of caries recurrence. This difference may be attributed to the distinct treatment philosophies between the two approaches. Conservative management focuses on preserving tooth structure and promoting remineralization through noninvasive interventions, while surgical management involves the removal of decayed tissue, which may compromise tooth structure and increase the risk of future complications.[3,4] However, it is essential to note that these differences were not statistically significant, highlighting the need for further research with larger sample sizes to validate these findings.
Another significant finding is the comparable rates of patient satisfaction between the conservative and surgical groups. Despite differences in treatment approaches, both groups reported high levels of satisfaction with their respective interventions. This underscores the importance of personalized treatment plans tailored to individual patient needs and preferences,[5] consistent with previous studies emphasizing patient-centered care in improving treatment outcomes and enhancing patient satisfaction.[6,7]
Current research highlights the importance of considering patient factors and preferences when selecting the appropriate management approach for dental caries. While both conservative and surgical interventions are effective, the decision should account for factors such as patient age, caries severity, and treatment preferences.[8,9] Younger subjects or those with minimal caries may benefit from conservative approaches, while older subjects or those with extensive caries may require surgical interventions to prevent further deterioration.[9]
However, current research has limitations, including its retrospective nature, small sample size, and potential biases. Future research employing prospective designs with larger, more diverse populations is necessary to validate current findings and elucidate the underlying mechanisms driving the observed outcomes.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, current research provides valuable insights into the long-term outcomes of conservative versus surgical management approaches for dental caries. Both strategies demonstrate comparable effectiveness in preserving tooth structure, preventing caries recurrence, and promoting patient satisfaction. Clinical decision-making should consider patient factors, caries severity, and treatment preferences to tailor individualized management plans. Future research should focus on prospective studies with larger sample sizes to further validate these findings and inform evidence-based practice in dental caries management.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Chen Y, Chen D, Lin H. Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21:13. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01364-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Maguire A, Clarkson JE, Douglas GV, Ryan V, Homer T, Marshman Z, et al. Best-practice prevention alone or with conventional or biological caries management for 3- to 7-year-olds: The FiCTION three-arm RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2020;24:1–174. doi: 10.3310/hta24010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Dziaruddin N, Zakaria ASI. Resin infiltration of non-cavitated enamel lesions in paediatric dentistry: A narrative review. Children (Basel) 2022;9:1893. doi: 10.3390/children9121893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Cebula M, Göstemeyer G, Krois J, Pitchika V, Paris S, Schwendicke F, et al. Resin infiltration of non-cavitated proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth: A systematic review and scenario analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Med. 2023;12:727. doi: 10.3390/jcm12020727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Splieth CH, Banerjee A, Bottenberg P, Breschi L, Campus G, Ekstrand KR, et al. How to intervene in the caries process in children: A joint ORCA and EFCD expert Delphi consensus statement. Caries Res. 2020;54:297–305. doi: 10.1159/000507692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Splieth CH, Kanzow P, Wiegand A, Schmoeckel J, Jablonski-Momeni A. How to intervene in the caries process: Proximal caries in adolescents and adults-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24:1623–36. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03201-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Sadıkoğlu İS. Using Resin Infiltration Technique and Direct Composite Restorations for the Treatment of Carious Lesions with Different Depths. Case Rep Dent 2023. 2023:5908006. doi: 10.1155/2023/5908006. doi: 10.1155/2023/5908006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Wu L, Geng K, Gao Q. Effects of different anti-caries procedures on microhardness and micromorphology of irradiated permanent enamel. Dent Mater J. 2020;39:118–25. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2018-385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kumar S, Mala N, Rana KS, Namazi N, Rela R, Kumar K. Cognizance and use of minimally invasive dentistry approach by general dentists: An overlooked companion. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021;13(Suppl 1):S199–202. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_674_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]