Alternative treatment strategies for carious primary teeth: An overview of the evidence

  • J. FoleyEmail author


Background: Dental decay in children’s primary teeth is a major health problem in the Great Britain with, in some areas, nearly 60% of five-year-olds having some experience of caries and 16% already having had at least one tooth extracted. Whilst currently accepted best practice for the management of carious primary teeth involves complete caries removal and placement of a plastic restoration, such conventional treatment is unpopular with general dental practitioners. Indeed, less than 15% of carious cavities in five-year-olds are currently restored and as such, there has been recent interest in alternative ‘minimal intervention’ treatment techniques for managing dental caries. Review: This review summarises the literature and also recent research efforts directed towards understanding the role of alternative treatment régimens including: (1) alternative techniques for cavity preparation and excavation and (2) the isolation of the carious process (in some cases, using cariostatic materials) from the oral environment or sealing in dental caries.

Key words

Alternative treatment strategies carious primary teeth literature review 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Addo-Yobo C, Williams SA, Curzon MEJ. Dental caries experience in Ghana among 12-year-old urban and rural schoolchildren. Caries Res 1991;25:311–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adrian JC, Bernier JL, Sprague WG. Laser and the dental pulp. J Am Dent Assoc 1971;83:113–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Azrak B, Callaway A, Grundheber A, Stender E, Willershausen B. Comparison of the efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal (Carisolv) with that of conventional excavation in reducing the cariogenic flora. Int J Paediatr Dent 2004;14:182–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacon RF. Dental cements. Dent Cosmos 1916;58:40.Google Scholar
  5. Banerjee A, Kidd EA, Watson TF. In vitro evaluation of five alternative methods of carious dentine excavation. Caries Res 2000a;34:144–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banerjee A, Kidd EA, Watson TF. Scanning electron microscopic observations of human dentine after mechanical caries excavation. J Dent 2000b;28:179–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banerjee A, Watson TF, Kidd EA. Dentine caries excavation: a review of current clinical techniques. Br Dent J 2000c;188:476–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Barber D, Massler M. Permeability of active and arrested carious lesions to dyes and radioactive isotopes. J Dent Child 1964;31:26–33.Google Scholar
  9. Boyde A. Airpolishing effects on enamel, dentine, cement and bone. Br Dent J 1984;156:287–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Croll TP. Glass ionomer-silver cermet Class II tunnel-restorations for primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child 1988;55:177–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Curzon and Toumba [2006]Google Scholar
  12. Duggal MS, Toumba KJ, Sharma NK. Clinical performance of a compomer and amalgam for the interproximal restoration of primary molars: a 24- month evaluation. Br Dent J 2002;193:339–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elderton RJ. Longitudinal study of dental treatment in the general dental service in Scotland. Br Dent J 1983;155:91–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans DJ, Matthews S, Pitts NB, Longbottom C, Nugent ZJ. A clinical evaluation of an Erbium:YAG laser for dental cavity preparation. Br Dent J 2000;188:677–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fayle SA. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric Dentistry. Stainless steel preformed crowns for primary molars. Faculty of Dental Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons. Int J Paediatr Dent 1999;9:311–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foley J, Blackwell A. In vivo cariostatic effect of black copper cement on carious dentine. Caries Res 2003a;37:254–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foley J, Blackwell A. Ion release from copper phosphate cement and influence on Streptococcus mutans growth in vitro: a comparative study. Caries Res 2003b;37:416–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foley J, Evans D, Blackwell A. Partial caries removal and cariostatic materials in carious primary molar teeth: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Br Dent J 2004;197:697–701; discussion 689.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foley J, Evans DJ, Lloyd CH, Blackwell A. Black copper phosphate cement: does it have a future? Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2001;9:67–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Forss H. Release of fluoride and other elements from light-cured glass ionomers in neutral and acidic conditions. J Dent Res 1993;72:1257–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forss H, Seppa L. Prevention of enamel demineralization adjacent to glass ionomer filling materials. Scand J Dent Res 1990;98:173–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Forsten L. Short- and long-term fluoride release from glass ionomers and other fluoride-containing filling materials in vitro. Scand J Dent Res 1990;98:179–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Forsten L. Clinical experience with glass ionomer for proximal fillings. Acta Odontol Scand 1993;51:195–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forsten L, Mount GJ, Knight G. Observations in Australia of the use of glass ionomer cement restorative material. Aust Dent J 1994;39:339–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Forward GC. Non-fluoride anticaries agents. Adv Dent Res 1994;8:208–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. ART: a minimal intervention approach to manage dental caries. Dent Update 2004;31:295–8, 301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Frencken JE, Makoni F, Sithole WD, Hackenitz E. Three-year survival of onesurface ART restorations and glass-ionomer sealants in a school oral health programme in Zimbabwe. Caries Res 1998;32:119–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frencken JE, Pilot T, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P. Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART): rationale, technique, and development. J Public Health Dent 1996;56:135–40; discussion 161–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frencken JE, Songpaisan Y, Phantumvanit P, Pilot T. An atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique: evaluation after one year. Int Dent J 1994;44:460–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Goldstein RE, Parkins FM. Air-abrasive technology: its new role in restorative dentistry [see comments]. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125:551–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Goldstein RE, Parkins FM. Using air-abrasive technology to diagnose and restore pit and fissure caries. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:761–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hasselrot L. Tunnel restorations. A 3 1/2-year follow up study of Class I and II tunnel restorations in permanent and primary teeth. Swed Dent J 1993;17:173–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Hojo S, Komatsu M, Okuda R, Takahashi N, Yamada T. Acid profiles and pH of carious dentin in active and arrested lesions. J Dent Res 1994;73:1853–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Honkala E, Behbehani J, Ibricevic H, Kerosuo E, Al-Jame G. The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic. Int J Paediatr Dent 2003;13:172–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Horiguchi S, Yamada T, Inokoshi S, Tagami J. Selective caries removal with air abrasion. Oper Dent 1998;23:236–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Horning G. Clinical use of an air-powder abrasive. Compendium 1987;8:652, 654–5, 658 passim.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kavvadia K, Karagianni V, Polychronopoulou A, Papagiannouli L. Primary teeth caries removal using the Carisolv chemomechanical method: a clinical trial. Pediatr Dent 2004;26:23–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Keller U, Hibst R. Experimental studies of the application of the Er:YAG laser on dental hard substances: II. Light microscopic and SEM investigations. Lasers Surg Med 1989;9:345–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keller U, Hibst R. Effects of Er:YAG laser in caries treatment: a clinical pilot study. Lasers Surg Med 1997;20:32–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keller U, Hibst R, Geurtsen W, Schilke R, Heidemann D, Klaiber B, Raab WH. Erbium:YAG laser application in caries therapy. Evaluation of patient perception and acceptance. J Dent 1998;26:649–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kerr DA, Ramfjord S, Ramfjord GM. Effect of inhalation of air abrasive powder. J Dent Res 1954;5:666.Google Scholar
  42. Koloway B, Kailis DG. Caries, gingivitis and oral hygiene in urban and rural pre-school children in Indonesia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1992;20:157–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laurell KA, Carpenter W, Daugherty D, Beck M. Histopathologic effects of kinetic cavity preparation for the removal of enamel and dentin. An in vivo animal study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;80:214–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levine RS. Distribution of fluoride in active and arrested carious lesions in dentin. J Dent Res 1972;51:1025–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levine RS. The differential inorganic composition of dentine within active and arrested carious lesions. Caries Res 1973;7:245–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levine RS, Pitts NB, Nugent ZJ. The fate of 1,587 unrestored carious deciduous teeth: a retrospective general dental practice based study from northern England. Br Dent J 2002;193:99–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lo EC, Holmgren CJ. Provision of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations to Chinese pre-school children—a 30-month evaluation. Int J Paediatr Dent 2001;11:3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lo EC, Luo Y, Fan MW, Wei SH. Clinical investigation of two glass-ionomer restoratives used with the atraumatic restorative treatment approach in China: two-years results. Caries Res 2001;35:458–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. MacGregor AB. The extent and distribution of acid in carious dentine. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1962;55:1063–1066.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Maragakis GM, Hahn P, Hellwig E. Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal in primary molars and its acceptance by patients. Caries Res 2001;35:205–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Matthesen M, Baelum V, Aarslev I, Fejerskov O. Dental health of children and adults in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa, in 1986. Community Dent Health 1990;7:123–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. McDonald SP, Sheiham A. A clinical comparison of non-traumatic methods of treating dental caries. Int Dent J 1994;44:465–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Mertz-Fairhurst EJ, Curtis JW, Jr., Ergle JW, Rueggeberg FA, Adair SM. Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations: results at year 10. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:55–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller WA, Massler M. Permeability and staining of active and arrested lesions in dentine. Br Dent J 1962;112:187–197.Google Scholar
  55. Mount GJ. Clinical performance of glass-ionomers. Biomaterials 1998;19:573–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nyvad B, Fejerskov O. Assessing the stage of caries lesion activity on the basis of clinical and microbiological examination. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25:69–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nyvad B, ten Cate JM, Fejerskov O. Arrest of root surface caries in situ. J Dent Res 1997;76:1845–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ostlund J, Moller K, Koch G. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars—a three year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J 1992;16:81–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Parikh SR, Massler M, Bahn A. Microorganisms in active and arrested carious lesions of dentine. NY State Dent J 1963;29:347–355.Google Scholar
  60. Peruchi C, Santos-Pinto L, Santos-Pinto A, Barbosa e Silva E. Evaluation of cutting patterns produced in primary teeth by an air-abrasion system. Quintessence Int 2002;33:279–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Pitts NB, Boyles J, Nugent ZJ, Thomas N, Pine CM. The dental caries experience of 5-year-old children in England and Wales (2003/4) and in Scotland (2002/3). Surveys co-ordinated by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry. Community Dent Health 2005;22:46–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Randall RC, Vrijhoef MM, Wilson NH. Efficacy of preformed metal crowns vs. amalgam restorations in primary molars: a systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:337–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Renson CE. Back to the future in cavity preparation [editorial]. Dent Update 1995;22:93–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Roberts JF, Sherriff M. The fate and survival of amalgam and preformed crown molar restorations placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice. Br Dent J 1990;169:237–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sarnat H, Massler M. Microstructure of active and arrested dentinal caries. J Dent Res 1965;44:1389–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Scherer W, Lippman N, Kaim J. Antimicrobial properties of glass-ionomer cements and other restorative materials. Oper Dent 1989;14:77–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Schupbach P, Lutz F, Guggenheim B. Human root caries: histopathology of arrested lesions. Caries Res 1992;26:153–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Prevention and Control of Dental Caries in the Pre-School Child. 2004Google Scholar
  69. Smales RJ, Gao W, Ho FT. In vitro evaluation of sealing pits and fissures with newer glass- ionomer cements developed for the ART technique [published erratum appears in J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998 Winter;22(2):178]. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1997;21:321–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith AJ, Chimimba PD, Kalf-Scholte S, Bouma J. Clinical pilot study on new dental filling materials and preparation procedures in developing countries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1990;18:309–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Svanberg M, Mjor IA, Orstavik D. Mutans streptococci in plaque from margins of amalgam, composite, and glass-ionomer restorations. J Dent Res 1990;69:861–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, van’t Hof MA, Truin GJ. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years. Caries Res 2002;36:437–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tickle M, Milsom D, King D, Kearney-Mitchell P, Blinkhorn A. The fate of the carious primary teeth of children who regularly attend the general dental service. Br Dent J 2002;192:219–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Van Leeuwen MJ, Rossano AT. Dust factors involved in the use of the airdent machine. J Dent Res 1952;31:33–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wang L, Lopes LG, Bresciani E,et al. Evaluation of Class I ART restorations in Brazilian schoolchildren: three-year results. Spec Care Dentist 2004;24:28–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Welbury RR, Walls AW, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J 1991;170:177–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Worner HK. Aust Dent J 1940;44:123, 413.Google Scholar
  78. Yazici AR, Ozgunaltay G, Dayangac B. A scanning electron microscopic study of different caries removal techniques on human dentin. Oper Dent 2002;27:360–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Yip HK, Smales RJ, Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glassionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results. Quintessence Int 2002;33:17–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Young MA, Massler M. Some physical and chemical characteristics of carious dentine. Br Dent J 1963;115:406–412.Google Scholar
  81. Yu C, Gao XJ, Deng DM, Yip HK, Smales RJ. Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity preparations: 2-year results. Int Dent J 2004;54:42–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Paediatric DentistryDundee Dental HospitalDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations