Relationships between free smooth surface and proximal caries in the young permanent dentition

Abstract

Cross-sectional relationships between free smooth surface and proximal caries were assessed in 3 age groups, comprising 252 subjects aged 12 yr, 301 aged 15-16 yr and 102 aged 18-19 yr. Caries diagnosis was clinically on white spot and radiographically on enamel lesion level. Fair correlation between buccal-lingual and proximal caries observed among 12-yr-olds (r=0.47) declined in the older subjects (r=0.24). While statistically significant the variability in proximal caries, explained by buccal-lingual lesions, was low (range 6-22%). Sensitivity and specificity for buccal-lingual lesions as an indicator for proximal caries in the same tooth ranged from 0.37-0.44 and 0.84-0.91, respectively, with associated Pv+ and Pv- ranging from 0.41-0.44 and 0.84-0.91, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for buccal-lingual caries in identifying subjects with proximal caries ranged from 0.33-0.44 and 0.67-0.98, respectively. Pv+ ranged from 0.94-0.99 and Pv- from 0.06-0.35. ROC curve analysis yielded A(z)-values of about 0.76 in the two younger age groups and 0.57 in the oldest. The results imply that information obtained from visual examination should be applied with caution when inferences about current caries status on proximal surfaces are made from the presence of buccal-lingual caries.

Caries outcomes after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances: do lingual brackets make a difference?

“…We did not find differences in incidence between the maxilla or mandible regarding buccal caries for the group as a whole. The number of buccal lesions that formed or progressed during orthodontic treatment in the maxilla (18) was not significantly different from that in the mandible (24) ( t ‐test equal variance, P = 0.7). Also, when only newly developed lesions were considered, the difference between the maxilla (6) and the mandible (13) was not significant ( t ‐test equal variance, P = 0.3).…”

“…The amounts of plaque found are higher for buccal or labial surfaces than for lingual or palatal surfaces (21, 22). Also, higher caries counts were reported for buccal or vestibular surfaces than for lingual or palatal surfaces (23, 24). It is assumed therefore that the development of caries on the lingual or palatal surfaces with fixed brackets adhered is slower than on buccal and vestibular surfaces undergoing similar treatment.…”

Karieshäufigkeit nach einer Behandlung mit festsitzenden Apparaturen: Machen linguale Brackets einen Unterschied?

“…labial höher als lingual bzw. palatinal [23,24]. Man geht daher davon aus, dass bei einer Behandlung mit lingual bzw.…”

Lingual orthodontic treatment: what is the current evidence base?

“…However, the lingual surfaces of the teeth appear to be less prone to caries than the buccal surfaces, 27 which is most likely due to differences in surface morphology, plaque retention, salivary flow and the mechanical cleaning of surfaces by the tongue. 28 Therefore, a seemingly clear advantage of lingual appliances is that the lingual tooth surface is less prone to demineralization and caries in comparison to the corresponding labial surface in contact with a labial appliance. Indeed, van der Veen et al 29 have investigated this theory in a split-mouth study in patients aged between 12 and 18 years randomly allocated to lingual or labial appliances.…”