1anuary/Pebruary 2007 DentaIUpdate 9

CarioIogy/RestorativeDentistry
Dan ricson
The Concept of Minimally |nvasive
Dentistry
Abstract: This paper reviews Minimally |nvasive Dentistry (M|D) from a day-to-day dentistry perspective, focusing mostly on cariology
and restorative dentistry, even though it embraces many aspects of dentistry. The concept of M|D supports a systematic respect for the
original tissue, including diagnosis, risk assessment, preventive treatment, and minimal tissue removal upon restoration. The motivation for
M|D emerges from the fact that fillings are not permanent and that the main reasons for failure are secondary caries and filling fracture. To
address these flaws, there is a need for economical re-routing so that practices can survive on maintaining dental health and not only by
operative procedures.
CIinicaI ReIevance: Secondary caries and fractured fillings are the main reasons for restoring teeth. The primary route to improve oral
health is to avert this by a systematic respect for the original tooth structure.
Dent Update 2007, 34: 9-18
7he concept
Minimally |nvasive Dentistry
l

(M|D) is a systematic respect for the original
tissue. The concept translates:
Prom a correct diagnosis of risk and
lesion assessment,
The institution of targeted preventive
treatment to stop disease,
Pestoration of lesions with as little
removal of healthy tissue as possible,
The use of durable materials,
The prevention of disease recurring.
There is no such thing as a
permanent filling (yet) and this is motivation
enough to promote M|D for those of us
that consider that the Hippocratic Oath
makes sense ('Pirst, do not harm..etc'). The
three words, Minimally |nvasive Dentistry,
sound benign and therefore might have
a potential to authorize prevention in the
world of drilling and filling. The phrase can
also help to motivate proper remuneration
of diagnosis, risk assessment and
prevention.
Minimal |ntervention Dentistry,
Preservative Dentistry, and Atraumatic
Pestorative Treatment (APT)
2-7
are similar,
if not identical, concepts. Prevention of
disease is the ultimate goal. Microdentistry
seems to relate more to technical
procedures.
8
Obviously, all these aspects of
M|D include less cutting and less removal
of healthy tooth tissue, leaving the natural
tissue as solid and as strong as possible.
M|D implies systemot|c tesect lot ot||nol
t|ssue and tevent|on, as well as cons|Jetoole
techn|col cometence. The concept embraces
all aspects of dentistry.
9,l0
This paper elaborates on the
conceptual facts and philosophy of M|D in
order to give one or two new perspectives
on the topic. The facts may be summarized
as follows:
we spend most of our time in practice
replacing and repairing previously inserted
restorations
ll
(Pigure l), that do not last
very long,
l2
owing to secondary caries
and restoration fractures
l3
(Pigure 2). The
philosophical summary of M|D reads:
0emonsttote o systemot|c tesect lot the
ot||nol t|ssue (Pigure 3) oy oclnowleJ|n
thot cot|es |s o mult|loctot|ol J|seose thot |s
not cuteJ oy testotot|ons onJ thot cov|t|es
weolen the ot||nol tooth (Pigure 4). The
Dan ricson, DDS, Dr Odont, Professor
and Head of Department of Cariology,
Paculty of Odontology, Malmo University,
Sweden. President of Academy of
Minimally |nvasive Dentistry.
catch: 7hete |s yet l|ttle sttuctuteJ ev|Jence lot
tevent|ve tteotment.
7he context
Today we have the knowledge,
possibility and interest to practice M|D. Lven
though many of us already do, the concept
is far from established in the world.
l4,l5
The
technical considerations on minimal tissue
removal have been thoroughly described by
Peters and McLean,
4
8urke,
5
Lricson et ol.
6
The circumstances that have
dramatically contributed to the increased
Figure 1. Demonstration of the amount of
practice time spent on repairing and replacing old
restorations.
ll
CarioIogy/RestorativeDentistry
l0 DentaIUpdate 1anuary/Pebruary 2007
focus on the topic are among others: the
vast technical possibilities to make tissue-
preserving restorations using adhesive
materials
5,6
and that restoration thresholds
have changed in many countries.
l6,l7

Purther, the limited survival of traditional
restorations in an increasingly older
population has made us aware that dental
health is beyond restorative artefacts.
l8

The option to adopt the M|D concept
depends also on the recall convention.
l7
|n
some countries, every individual is raised
and aged within a dental recall system. |n
others, the tradition is to visit the dentist
when symptoms arise, as there are |ust
too few dentists.
l9
To assess and monitor
risk and early symptoms, individualized
recall systems are pertinent. Such recall
systems are also necessary to be able to
delegate health behaviour to the patient
and assist in his/her success. within some
Luropean countries, the dentist is not
allowed to arrange a recall appointment,
as the patient must have a free choice to
select a dentist on each occasion. |f such
a dentist is not sure that the patient will
return, it might be likely that the dentist
makes a restoration rather than monitor a
lesion's progress to institute prevention and
to select the optimal timing for a filling. et,
in Scandinavian countries, it is becoming
more common to use individualized recall
intervals, and to monitor caries lesions for
longer periods. Lven though all aspects of
M|D cannot be implemented at all times,
the minimal removal of healthy tooth
substance in operative dentistry can be
achieved.
However, the procedures
included in the minimally invasive
philosophy are not in line with
reimbursement systems in many (if any)
countries. Preventive measures and tissue-
preserving operative procedures may take
longer than do traditional fillings. The fee
for fillings always ends up being higher per
time unit. |t is essential to level the payment
systems so the prevention and tissue-
preserving approach can be rewarding, not
only for the patient, but also for the dentist,
as 'fillings are not curative', stated already by
8lack in l908.
20
7he consequences
|t is quite clear that the
mere process of restoring teeth with
different materials will not cure the
disease that caused the cavity in the
first place. Therefore, it is imperative that
each restorative procedure also includes
treatment directed against the disease
process, as the evidence base demonstrates
that filling survival is not impressive.
l2

Pillings are only second to prevention.
8ut, on the other hand, small fillings
survive better than large ones.
2l
So, once a
decision to restore is made, it is important
to maintain a maximum amount of the
original structure.
The introduction of adhesive
restorative materials and the deeper
knowledge of the caries lesion in enamel
Figure 2. The reasons for filling replacement are demonstrated in this graph after M|or and co-workers
2000,
l3
the main reasons being secondary caries and restoration fracture. (Mean annual failure rates of
stress-bearing restorations 3.0% for amalgam and 2.2% for direct composite restorations
12
).
Figure 3. This symbol of a rose-bur with a disarming
knot might give a vision of prevention and minimally
invasive dentistry. (Por mental use only.)
Figure 4. Traditional preparation technique often
renders removal of a smaller amount of caries as
compared to healthy dentine.
CarioIogy/RestorativeDentistry
l2 DentaIUpdate 1anuary/Pebruary 2007
and dentine are main achievements in
clinical dentistry that have allowed the
further application of a tissue-preserving
attitude in restoring teeth.
2
Many
techniques have been reviewed.
5,6
8ut
before arriving at an operative or preventive
treatment decision, we need to consider:
what happens if | restoreI what is the
survival rate of fillingsI
|f | don'tI what is the 'survival' of small
and large caries lesions (before they
progress beyond prevention)I
Drives for MID in carioIogy
|t is essential to sharpen the
motives for M|D in relation to how far the
techniques have come and where the
traditional alternatives lead. Some motives
are not new at all as 'fillings are not curative'
and this is of course still true. 8eyond that,
the current most important motives are
(condensed after Lricson
9
):
The limited survival of restorations,
Larly diagnosis of lesions and accurate
risk assessment are available,
The extensive knowledge on caries
progression rates,
Adhesive restorative materials and
techniques promote less removal of healthy
tissue,
The high risk for iatrogenic effects.
7he Iimited survivaI of restorations
A huge evidence-base clearly
establishes that secondary caries and
fracture of fillings are the main reasons
for restoration replacement in general
dental practices.
l2,l3,22,23
The survival times
of restorations are increasing, at least from
the days of Gv 8lack
24
when a filling should
protect the tooth 'for two or three years.' 8ut
there is still no such thing as a 'permanent'
filling. |t is also evident that 65% of the
time in practice is spent for re-restoration
or repair of previous restorations, again the
main reason being secondary caries.
ll
The
mean annual failure rates of stress-bearing
restorations have been reported to be 3.0%
for amalgam and 2.2% for direct composite
restorations.
l2
5ecenJnry cnries
|t might be wise to recognize
that 'secondary caries is no different from
primary caries except that it occurs next
to a filling.'
25
The difficulties in diagnosing
secondary caries were recently reviewed by
M|or.
26
|t is well known that the explorer will
catch in any crevice whether it is carious or
not and that staining is not a predictor for
secondary caries. The diagnosis should be
supported by other findings (radiographic,
presence of soft dentine, etc). The rationale
suggested by M|or
26
is to consider it a
localized disease, and that restoration
should start with a limited exploratory
preparation, and that the reparation should
not extend more than the actual caries
lesion. The outcome could often be repair
instead of replacement.
lrncrures
Large fillings and teeth with
large restorations are more prone to
failure.
2l,27
|n replacing a restoration, there
is a considerable waste of healthy tooth
substance and increase of cavity size.
28,29

This is particularly true when replacing
tooth-coloured resin composites, when it
is difficult to identify the border between
filling and tooth. The result of resin
replacement is a faster increase in cavity
size. The fact that large fillings survive for
a shorter time than small ones, increases
the motives for repair and refurbishing
procedures.
Lven though fillings are not
permanent, they are still needed to fill
the defect after excision of necrotic (and
healthy) tissue. |t is also obvious that
disease preventing efforts and the t|m|n
of the restoration placement are crucial to
maximize longevity.
arIy diagnosis of Iesions and accurate risk
assessment
Caries diagnosis has been
described as a mental resting place on the
way to a treatment decision.
30
Diagnosis
(from Greek, thtouh lnowleJe) implies
that it is not merely the recognition of
lesions using more and more sophisticated
tools,
3l
but rather the conceptual triad:
|dentify the caries lesion,
Lstablish whether it will progress or not,
Assess if more lesions will occur.
7eels Ier enrly Jerecrien eI cnries lesiens
A number of tools, apart
from the eye, explorer and traditional
radiograph, have been developed. Lxamples
Figure 5. A screenshot of the Cariogram model which can be downloaded free (http://www.db.od.
mah.se/car/cariogram/cariograminfo.htmI).
1anuary/Pebruary 2007 DentaIUpdate l3
CarioIogy/RestorativeDentistry
of ob|ective tools are digital radiographic
techniques, D|POT|
32
(digital imaging optic
trans-illumination), electric conductivity
methods and laser and light fluorescence
techniques.
33
However, little clinical data are
available to validate the technologies.
3l,34

The laser fluorescence methods have been
debated lately,
35-37
and visual criteria for
detection of early occlusal caries are still
applicable, provided the surfaces are clean
and dry. Probing can cause iatrogenic
damages. Combining radiographs and
visual criteria-based diagnoses increases
diagnostic accuracy.
37
The spotting of an
active incipient caries lesion is a clinical
symptom to be acted upon, as this proves
beyond any reasonable doubt that the
patient is highly susceptible to caries.
Caries risk assessment involves
the process of analysing and weighing up
risk factors and then coming up with a
value of the risk to develop caries lesions
or not. The result will be used for selection
of appropriate prevention strategies.
Assessing caries risk is a complex task, and
the theme of risk assessment prompts
extensive elaboration beyond the focus of
this chapter. Among those risk-prediction
models that have been validated, the
Cariogram may be of value
38,39
(Pigure
5). Such tools can help the clinician to
structure the information on caries risk and
also institute measures directed towards the
specific risk situation. |t can be downloaded
free (http://www.db.od.mah.se/car/
cariogram/cariograminfo.htmI).
Caries progression rates
The actual progression of caries
have been studied in various populations.
40-42

Mean values in such studies demonstrate
that early enamel lesions progress rather
slowly and, for early dentine lesions, the
annual progression rate to deep dentinal
lesions is approximately 20% of all dentinal
lesions. One could also say that 80% do not
progress significantly during one year.
40

Also, average progression times for dentine
caries progression vary with patient age
42

(Pigure 6). Larly dentine lesion in l2-l5
year-olds show annual progression in
32.5% (one out of three progresses). |f
the restorative decision is based on the
radiographs only (caries in the dentine),
one would end up with unnecessary
restorations in two out of three cases, given
the circumstances that patients are recalled
annually. Such studies show that restorative
intervention thresholds should be based
on an individual risk assessment and not
only on what is seen on the radiograph. The
progression is faster in primary teeth.
43
Resrernrien rhreshelJs
|n many Luropean countries,
restoration thresholds have become
more and more 'into the dentine'
l6
. As an
example, for occlusal cavities (on a second
molar in a 20-year-old), the threshold for
operative treatment is a moderately-sized
open cavity and/or radiolucency into the
dentine for approximately 70% of dentists
in Scandinavia.
44
Similar data can be found
for proximal caries lesions.
45
|n the light of caries progression
rates and restoration survival data, operative
intervention should be postponed until all
other methods of controlling the disease
have been exhausted. This also means that
early lesions have to be monitored more
or less throughout life, preferably in an
individual recall system.
l7
As a consequence of the
evidence of caries diagnosis accuracy,
progression and restoration survival data,
every filling should be carefully considered
and a lesion restored when:
we are certain of progression and cannot
stop it,
There are symptoms,
There are aesthetic considerations,
The surface is needed for oral function.
Adhesive restorative materiaIs and techniques
promote Iess removaI of heaIthy tissue
One of the most important
prerequisites for M|D within cariology is
the development of adhesive restorative
materials,
2
useful for a number of
procedures from preventive restorations
as fissure sealants, to large fillings and
even crown-replacements.
46
These
adhesive materials have revolutionized
dentistry by opening the alternatives in
cavity preparation. Smaller cavities can be
prepared, aiming at removing diseased
dental tissue only.
6,37
The fluoride-releasing
materials may contribute slightly to less
secondary caries.
47
Several new preparation
techniques have emerged as a consequence
of the knowledge of caries progression
Figure 6. Annual dentine caries progression rates in a prospective study by Me|are and co-workers
2004.
42
The progression of early dentine lesions (left side of tooth) to deep dentine lesion (right side) is
less frequent in the older age groups.
CarioIogy/RestorativeDentistry
l4 DentaIUpdate 1anuary/Pebruary 2007
rates, survival of fillings and new adhesive
materials. A les|on ot|entot|on in preparation
procedures is promoted,
48,49
which means
first to access the dentine caries to remove
or modify the infected dentine, leaving
the affected dentine, then to modify the
cavity as little as possible to receive the
filling material, as pertinently described by
Lricson et ol.
6
Several reviews on operative
techniques have also been described
elsewhere.
5,50
This is conceptually different
from 'fitting the filling in the tooth' -
an approach using classical amalgam
preparation rules. The lesion orientation is
also applied in repair or refurbishing of a
restoration.
26,29
High risk for iatrogenic effects
|t has been demonstrated
that, in 60-70% of proximal preparations,
the ad|acent tooth is damaged and will
thus develop caries more frequently as
compared to an undamaged surface.
5l

This fact is very seldom considered when
discussing longevity of restoration, and one
should certainly add the aspect of longevity
of the unrestored ad|acent surface (Pigure
7). The drift in restorative thresholds leads to
less iatrogenic effects and might also have
influenced the caries decline.
52
The increase
in cavity size by waste of healthy tissue
at each re-restoration is also iatrogenic.
Pepair or refurbishing of a restoration may
decrease iatrogenic damages.
26,29
A truly M|D procedure,
minimizing iatrogenic effects, is the
step-wise excavation approach.
53
The
procedure is based on considerations of
caries pathology, to change the cariogenic
environment, and not to remove carious
dentine close to the pulp because this risks
an iatrogenic pulp exposure. After a sealing
period, lesions arrest and the vital dentine
responds by remineralization and formation
of pulpal dentine. At re-entry, the excavation
is continued as far as hard dentine, reducing
the risk for unnecessary exposure, root-
canal treatment and weakening of the
tooth.
7he confIict
we have the means, motives
and opportunities for M|D, but there
may be a lack of economical incentives.
Habitually, patients and third parties
are convinced that the only things that
count are operative procedures, that is,
it is alright to pay for a filling but not for
diagnostics, risk assessment or procedures
that can help avoid having a restoration.
This is the bottom line and many
reimbursement systems do not recognize
non-operative procedures to the extent
that the care provider can survive. There
is a reimbursement threshold to every
enterprise as well as a restorative threshold
to caries lesions. |t would be convenient if
reimbursement could go hand in hand with
M|D and the maintenance of health.
7he concIusion
The main reasons for restoration
replacement are secondary caries and
restoration fractures. Secondary caries is
the same disease as primary caries, but
located in the tooth structure ad|acent to
the restoration. To increase the survival rate
of restorations, the main focus should be to
address the conditions that caused caries
in the first place, and the second to make
fillings less prone to fracture.
within cariology, M|D has lately
evolved faster, since we now understand
the disease better, and the evidence-
base on the short survival of restorations
prompts action. we can intercept disease
development, and have the technical
possibilities to remove a minimal amount of
healthy tooth substance and make smaller
adhesive fillings. There has been a change
from 'caries lesions are treated operatively'
towards 'caries lesions are treated by
addressing their causes', as well as using
a more tissue-preserving approach when
restoring teeth.
Lven though we do not have
sufficient evidence that prevention is always
effective,
54
we have an enormous evidence-
base indicating, without doubt, that fillings
are futile to treat the disease. Such therapy
is directed towards the symptoms - the
cavities and, at its best, it buys some time,
as stated by 8lack in l908. when it comes
to M|D philosophy, addressing 'caries as a
whole' - | dare say '8lack to the future'.
References
l. Simonsen P1. The preventive resin
restoration: a minimally invasive,
nonmetallic restoration. ComenJ|um
l987, 8: 428-430.
2. Tyas M1, Anusavice K1, Prencken 1L,
Mount G1. Minimal intervention
dentistry - a review. Commission
Pro|ect l-97. lnt 0ent 1 2000, 50: l-l2.
3. widdop PT. Caring for the dentate
elderly. lnt 0ent 1 l989, 39: 85-94.
4. Peters MC, McLean ML. Minimally
invasive operative care. |. Minimal
intervention and concepts for
minimally invasive cavity preparations.
Figure 7. |nterproximal preparation protection device, based on a steel band attached to a wedge. This
makes application simpler and the wedge retains the device even after the interproximal contact is lost
during preparation (Penderwedge Directa A8, www.trycare.co.uk).
1anuary/Pebruary 2007 DentaIUpdate l7
CarioIogy/RestorativeDentistry
1 AJhes 0ent 200la, 3: 7-l6.
5. 8urke P1T. Prom extension for
prevention to prevention of extension:
(minimal intervention dentistry). 0ent
uJote 2003, 30: 492-502.
6. Lricson D, Kidd L, McComb D, M|or |,
Noack M1. Minimally invasive dentistry
- concepts and techniques in cariology.
Otol leolth Ptev 0ent 2003, 1: 59-72.
7. Mickenautsch S. An introduction
to minimum intervention dentistry.
5|noote 0ent 1 2005, 27: l-6.
8. Painey 1T Understanding the
applications of microdentistry.
ComenJ Cont|n lJuc 0ent 200l, 22:
l0l8-l025.
9. Lricson D. Minimally invasive dentistry
- philosophy and motives in cariology.
|n: NotJ|c 0ent|stty eotoool 2004.
Copenhagen: Quintessence, pp.49-65.
l0. Christensen G1. The advantages of
minimally invasive dentistry. 1 Am 0ent
Assoc 2005, 136: l563-l565.
ll. Porss H, widstrom L. Peasons for
restorative therapy and longevity of
restorations in adults. Acto OJontol
5conJ 2004, 62: 82-86.
l2. Manhart 1, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel P.
8uonocore Memorial Lecture. Peview
of the clinical survival of direct and
indirect restorations in posterior teeth
of the permanent dentition. Oet 0ent
2004, 29: 48l-508.
l3. M|or |A, Dahl 1L, Moorhead 1L. The
age of restorations at replacement in
permanent teeth in general dental
practice. Acto OJontol 5conJ 2000, 58:
97-l0l.
l4. Anusavice K1. Present and future
approaches for the control of caries.
1 0ent lJuc 2005, 69: 538-554.
l5. Levato CM. Caries management: a new
paradigm. ComenJ Cont|n lJuc 0ent
2005, 26(6A Suppl): 448-454.
l6. Pitts N8. Clinical diagnosis of dental
caries: a Luropean perspective. 1 0ent
lJuc 200l, 65: 972-978.
l7. Pitts N8. Are we ready to move from
operative to non-operative/preventive
treatment of dental caries in clinical
practiceI Cot|es keseotch 2004, 38:
294-304.
l8. Anusavice K1. Dental caries: risk
assessment and treatment solutions for
an elderly population. ComenJ Cont|n
lJuc 0ent 2002, 23(l0 Suppl): l2-20.
l9. wHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile
Programme. http://www.whocoIIab.
od.mah.se/index.htmI
20. 8lack Gv. A wotl on Oetot|ve 0ent|stty.
Chicago: Medico-Dental Publishing Co,
l908.
2l. Lucarotti PS, Holder PL, 8urke P1.
Outcome of direct restorations placed
within the general dental services in
Lngland and wales (Part l): variation by
type of restoration and re-intervention.
1 0ent 2005, 33: 805-8l5.
22. Soderholm K1, Tyas M1, 1okstad A.
Determinants of quality in operative
dentistry. Ct|t kev Otol 8|ol VeJ l998, 9:
464-479.
23. Hickel P, Kaaden C, Paschos L, 8uerkle v,
Garcia-Godoy P, Manhart 1. Longevity
of occlusally-stressed restorations in
posterior primary teeth. Am 1 0ent 2005,
18: l98-2ll.
24. 8lack AD, ed. C.v. 8locls wotl on
Oetot|ve 0ent|stty. . 7teotment ol
0entol Cot|es. Chicago, |L: Medico-
Dental Publishing, l936: p.60.
25. Kidd LA. Diagnosis of secondary caries.
1 0ent lJuc 200l, 65: 997-l000.
26. M|or |A. Clinical diagnosis of recurrent
caries. 1 Am 0ent Assoc 2005, 136:
l426-l433.
27. wilson NH, wastell DG, Norman PD.
Pive-year performance of high-copper
content amalgam restorations in
a multiclinical trial of a posterior
composite. 1 0ent l996, 24: 203-2l0.
28. Hunter A, Treasure L, Hunter A.
|ncreases in cavity volume associated
with the removal of class 2 amalgam
and composite restorations. Oet 0ent
l995, 20: 2-6.
29. M|or |A, Gordan vv. Pailure, repair,
refurbishing, and longevity of
restorations. Oet 0ent 2002, 27:
528-534.
30. Pe|erskov O, Kidd LAM, eds. |n: 0entol
Cot|es. Chotet 6. Cot|es J|onos|s
- o mentol test|n loce on the woy to
|ntetvent|on/ . 8aelum v, Pe|erskov O.
Oxford: 8lackwell, 2003.
3l. Stookey GK, Gonzalez-Cabezas C.
Lmerging methods of caries diagnosis.
1 0ent lJuc 200l, 65: l00l-l006.
32. ang 1, Dutra v. Utility of radiology, laser
fluorescence, and transillumination.
0ent Cl|n Notth Am 2005, 49: 739-752.
33. Shi, X-Q. Comotot|ve stuJ|es ol moJetn
methoJs lot cot|es Jetect|on onJ
quont|l|cot|on. Thesis, Karoliska |nstitute,
Sweden, 200l.
34. Stookey GK. Quantitative light
fluorescence: a technology for early
monitoring of the caries process. 0ent
Cl|n Notth Am 2005, 49: 753-770.
35. Angnes v, Angnes G, 8atisttella M,
Grande PH, Loguercio AD, Peis A.
Clinical effectiveness of laser
fluorescence, visual inspection and
radiography in the detection of occlusal
caries. Cot|es kes 2005, 39: 490-495.
36. Picketts D. The eyes have it. How good
is D|AGNOdent at detecting cariesI lv|J
8oseJ 0ent 2005, 6: 64-65.
37. McComb D. Conservative operative
management strategies. 0ent Cl|n Notth
Am 2005, 49: 847-865.
38. 8ratthall D. Dental caries: intervened -
interrupted - interpreted. Concluding
remarks and cariography. lut 1 Otol 5c|
l996, 104: 486-49l.
39. 8ratthall D, Hansel Petersson G.
Cariogram - a multifactorial risk
assessment model for a multifactorial
disease. Commun|ty 0ent Otol l|Jem|ol
2005, 33: 256-264.
40. Me|are |, Kallestl C, Stenlund H.
|ncidence and progression of
approximal caries from ll to 22
years of age in Sweden: a prospective
radiographic study. Cot|es kes l999, 33:
93-l00.
4l. Lith A, Lindstrand C, Grondahl HG.
Caries development in a young
population managed by a restrictive
attitude to radiography and operative
intervention: ||. A study at the surface
level. 0entomox|lloloc koJ|ol 2002, 31:
232-239.
42. Me|are |, Stenlund H, Zelezny-
Holmlund C. Caries incidence and
lesion progression from adolescence
to young adulthood: a prospective l5-
year cohort study in Sweden. Cot|es kes
2004, 38: l30-l4l.
43. vanderas AP, Manetas C, Koulatzidou M,
Papagiannoulis L. Progression of
proximal caries in the mixed dentition:
a 4-year prospective study. PeJ|ott 0ent
2003, 25: 229-234.
44. Lspelid |, Tveit A8, Me|are |, Sundberg H,
Hallonsten AL. Pestorative treatment
decisions on occlusal caries in
Scandinavia. Acto OJontol 5conJ 200l,
59: 2l-27.
45. Sundberg H, Me|are |, Lspelid |, Tveit A8.
Swedish dentists' decisions on
CarioIogy/RestorativeDentistry
l8 DentaIUpdate 1anuary/Pebruary 2007
preparation techniques and restorative
materials. Acto OJontol 5conJ 2000, 58:
l35-l4l.
46. Peters MC, McLean ML. Minimally
invasive operative care. ||. Contemporary
techniques and materials: an overview.
1 AJhes 0ent 200lb, 3: l7-3l.
47. McComb D, Lrickson PL, Maxymiw wG,
wood PL. A clinical comparison of glass
ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer
and resin composite restorations in
the treatment of cervical caries in
xerostomic head and neck radiation
patients. Oet 0ent 2002, 27: 430-437.
48. 8aner|ee A, watson T, Kidd L. Dentine
caries excavation: a review of current
clinical techniques. 8t 0ent 1 2000, 188:
476-482.
49. ip H, Samaranayake L. Caries removal
techniques and instrumentation: a
review. Cl|n Otol lnvest l998, 2: l48-l54.
50. Prencken 1L, Holmgren C1. APT: a
minimal intervention approach to
manage dental caries. 0ent uJote
2004, 31: 295-298, 30l.
5l. Qvist v, 1ohannessen L, 8ruun M.
Progression of approximal caries in
relation to iatrogenic preparation
damage. 1 0ent kes l992, 71:
l370-l373.
52. Nadanovski P, Sheiham A. The relative
contribution of dental services to
the changes in caries levels of l2-
year-old children in l8 industrialized
countries in the l970s and early l980s.
Commun|ty 0ent Otol l|Jem|ol l995,
23: 23l-239.
53. 8|orndal L, Kidd LA. The treatment of
deep dentine caries lesions. 0ent uJote
2005, 32: 402-404, 407-4l0, 4l3.
54. 8ader 1D, Shugars DA, 8onito A1. A
systematic review of selected caries
prevention and management methods.
Commun|ty 0ent Otol l|Jem|ol 200l,
29: 399-4ll.
Understanding NHS dentistry. 8y Len
D'Cruz, Pa| Pattan and Michael watson.
Cambridge: New Contract Help Publications,
5 The Terrace, St. Peters Street, Cambridge
C83 08L (www.newcontractheIp.co.uk),
2006 (l67pp., 30). |S8N 0-905l5l45-3-9.
The new NHS dental contract was
introduced on lst April 2006, with a
multitude of new regulations, definitions
and concepts. Some practitioners will have
read through the regulations and some, but
by no means all, will have understood them.
This book sets out to introduce the reader
to the concept of local commissioning,
examine the various contracting models,
assess how contract values are calculated
and then monitored, and look at the
regulations in respect of complaints and
performance management. |t also contains
an excellent chapter brimful of ideas and
models for business administration and
management of change.
There are l5 chapters. The first
provides an excellent history of dentistry
within the NHS and how the current
situation was reached, while the next two
look at local commissioning and contracting
- this includes the structure of the NHS,
Strategic Health Authorities and Primary
Care Trusts. All of this is of help to the reader
in understanding the responsibilities and
functions of these bodies. Also included
is a detailed exposition of Units of Dental
Activity. Chapters 4 and 5 explain who
may hold a contract, and the differences
between performers and providers, while
chapters 6 and 7 explain the concept of
mandatory services, whether mixing NHS
ookReview
and private treatment is
permissible, and the role
of clinical care pathways.
Useful annexes are included
in these chapters, giving
examples of protocols for
different treatments and the
phasing of treatment. The
following three chapters
advise the reader on
how the contract value is
calculated, how performance
will be measured and the
management of associates.
Chapter ll examines the
new complaints process and
the NHS dispute procedure,
with this complex procedure
being well illustrated by a
flow diagram that runs to
six pages! Chapter l2 deals
with clinical governance and
the new role of the Dental
Peference Service. And
the book ends with useful
chapters on the business of
dentistry.
The sub|ect
of this book may not be
considered exciting or interesting by
some but, in fact, the authors are to be
commended, not only for making the
sub|ect interesting and easily digested, but
also for the vast array of information that
they have gathered in the short period from
the introduction of the new regulations.
Throughout, this easily read book is well
illustrated by charts and diagrams and the
wide variety of annexes provide practical
information which will be of value to all
dentists who are operating within the new
arrangements. |t is essential reading for all
who are working in the new General Dental
Services, but will also be of interest to
those in private practice who want to keep
abreast of what is happening.
F1 7revor urke
ditoriaI Director