Dental caries on adjacent approximal tooth surfaces in relation to order of eruption

Abstract

The occurrence of dental caries on adjacent approximal molar and premolar tooth surfaces was examined on posterior bitewing radiographs. More distal surfaces of the first permanent molars were decayed than adjacent mesial surfaces of the second molars. The appearance of dental caries on adjacent premolar surfaces was related to the order of eruption; the surface that had erupted first was likely to be decayed first. Reports from other studies on adjacent approximal surfaces indicate that this conclusion has a general bearing. It therefore seems important to increase the caries resistance of already erupted teeth by preventive means before and during the eruption of adjacent teeth.

Caries incidence rates in Swedish adolescents and young adults with particular reference to adjacent approximal tooth surfaces: a methodological study

“…One can only speculate about such possible differences. According to the present and previous results (4–6, 14), it seems that the ‘oldest’ tooth surface may be at a ‘disadvantage’ in that it is more readily affected by caries progression up to a radiographically visible stage. Thus, the so‐called post‐eruptive maturation of the enamel does not seem to be an advantage for preventing caries on the approximal surfaces.…”

“…As judged clinically, neighbouring approximal tooth surfaces differ in their caries susceptibility (3–6), implying that one surface may show obvious radiographic signs of caries while the neighbouring surface does not. Various reasons for the differing caries susceptibility have been proposed, such as different tooth surface morphology or different post‐eruptive enamel maturation of the surfaces (6).…”

“…Various reasons for the differing caries susceptibility have been proposed, such as different tooth surface morphology or different post‐eruptive enamel maturation of the surfaces (6). Based on the longitudinal caries data of neighbouring approximal tooth surfaces, Edward (4) and Burchell (5) proposed that the more mature enamel (the surface with the longest post‐eruptive time) is more caries susceptible than the newly erupted neighbouring tooth surface. Nordblad and Larmas (7), on the other hand, did not observe any differences in caries susceptibility between the distal surface of the first permanent molar and the mesial surface of the second permanent molar and concluded that for these two surfaces there was no dependence on post‐eruptive maturation or time of eruption.…”

Prevalence of Caries on Individual Tooth Surfaces and its Distribution by Age and Gender in University Clinic Patients

“…3,4 The most frequent sites of attack are the occlusal surfaces of the first and second permanent molars. 4 In addition, it was reported that neighboring approximal tooth surfaces differ in their caries susceptibility, [5][6][7] implying that one surface may show obvious radiographic signs of caries, while the neighboring surface does not. 8 Various reasons for the differing caries susceptibilities have been proposed, such as different tooth surface morphology or different posteruptive enamel maturation of the surfaces.…”

Updated Comparison of the Caries Susceptibility of Various Morphological Types of Permanent Teeth

“…Since the 1940s, a number of studies have described the relative susceptibility of teeth to carious attack (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18); however, each of these studies has had some notable limitations. Most of the studies focused on the susceptibility of only tooth surfaces, all used relatively small target populations, and none replicated Klein and Palmer's original analytical methods.…”