Article
The concept of sealing deep caries into a vital asymptomatic tooth, rather than removing all caries and risking a pulpal exposure with all the inevitable sequelae (ranging from pulp-capping to root canal-filling), has gained increasing acceptance from the time when Mertz-Fairhurst and colleagues published their ten-year randomized controlled trial in 1998.1 In this work, in a split mouth research design study, all patients received an amalgam restoration (50% of which were sealed after restoration placement) and a resin composite restoration, with all the caries being removed from the amalgam cavities, but only the ‘soft strands of decay’ being removed from the composite cavities. Results of subsequent work by Kidd et al indicated that, when caries was sealed into a cavity and the cavity re-opened after five months, the residual caries had become harder, darker and dryer, and that the number of bacteria associated with the lesion had substantially decreased.2 In clinical research on primary teeth from Brazil,3 there were two treatment groups, with incomplete caries removal in 4 to 7-year-old children, cavities treated with Ca(OH)2 or gutta-percha (gutta-percha to indicate an inert base), the cavities sealed with resin composite for 4 to 7 months, and then re-opened and examined.The soft caries changed to hard or leathery and the number of bacteria reduced in both treatment groups. The authors concluded that ‘the resin-based composite sealing of caries lesion, with or without a calcium hydroxide liner over the infected remaining tissue, may help preserve dental tissue as well as pulp vitality’. A related study4 concluded that ‘resin-based composite may arrest the progress of underlying caries’. Review articles and Cochrane reviews have also supported the concept of sealing caries into vital asymptomatic teeth,5,6,7,8 providing statements such as:
‘There is no clear evidence that it is deleterious to leave infected dentine, even if it is soft and wet, prior to sealing the cavity, and this cautious approach may be preferable to vigorous excavation because fewer pulps will be exposed’;5
‘One can state that there is substantial evidence that the removal of all infected dentine in deep carious lesions is not required for successful caries treatment, provided that the restoration can seal the lesion from the oral environment effectively’6 (present author's italics);
‘Partial caries removal is preferable to complete caries removal’;7
‘These techniques (sealing caries) show clinical advantage over complete caries removal’.8
The recent Dental Update review by Kidd et al9 is particularly clear, indeed forthright, in its conclusions, namely, that ‘when restoring deep caries lesions in vital, asymptomatic teeth, vigorous excavation is likely to expose the pulp. This complete excavation is not needed and should be avoided’. These authors stress that it is the seal which is important. The message therefore is clear, that sealing caries into a vital asymptomatic tooth has become an accepted technique. In that regard, however, the author has encountered comments from UK-based general dental practitioners who have suggested that a variety of authorities do not accept this concept and have criticized dentists for leaving caries under restorations. Moreover, dentists who are not aware of the concepts described above may criticize colleagues, should a patient for whom caries has intentionally been sealed into a deep cavity attend such a dentist.
It may therefore be considered that there is a need to provide patients with an Information Leaflet explaining the concept of sealing caries into vital asymptomatic teeth: this is presented in Table 1. It is also to be hoped that ‘non-believers’ in the sealing-caries concept also become more aware by reading reviews such as that mentioned above, by Kidd and colleagues.9
As a patient, what you need to know is:
|