Comparative Clinical Review of Minimally Invasive vs Conventional Restorative Dentistry in Caries Management
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Description
Abstract
Background: The philosophy of restorative dentistry has undergone a profound transformation, moving away from the historically dominant, surgically-oriented principles of G.V. Black. The traditional "extension for prevention" approach, which advocated for the prophylactic removal of sound tooth structure to prevent future caries, is now being superseded by a biologically conservative paradigm. Minimally Invasive Dentistry (MID) prioritises the preservation of healthy tooth tissue, promotes the natural remineralisation of early lesions, and aims to maintain pulp vitality throughout the caries management process.
Objective: This review seeks to critically compare the clinical efficacy (including restoration longevity and pulpal health), biological outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and patient-centred experiences of minimally invasive restorative techniques against those of conventional restorative methods for the management of dental caries.
Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using major electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar) for relevant clinical trials, cohort studies, and systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2024. The search focused on studies providing direct comparisons between MID and conventional approaches.
Results: Evidence consistently demonstrates that MID techniques—such as Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART), selective and stepwise caries removal, and the use of advanced adhesive and bioactive materials—achieve clinical outcomes that are comparable to, and in many aspects superior to, conventional methods. Specifically, MID shows advantages in preserving sound tooth structure, reducing the risk of pulpal exposure and postoperative sensitivity, and enhancing patient comfort and acceptance. While conventional methods remain reliable for extensive, non-restorable cavities, they are associated with greater iatrogenic damage to the tooth and a higher long-term risk of complications like fracture.
Conclusion: Minimally invasive restorative dentistry offers a scientifically sound, sustainable, and patient-friendly framework for managing dental caries. Its principles align seamlessly with modern preventive dentistry and are particularly well-suited to address public health challenges, both in India and across the globe.
Files
RAVADA KINNERESH.pdf
Files
(720.7 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:87e617b0ba1bc6b715f9583f7285ffcd
|
720.7 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Software
References
- 1. World Health Organization. Global Oral Health Status Report, 2022. 2. Black GV. Operative Dentistry. Medico-Dental Publishing Co., 1908. 3. Elderton RJ. Restorative Dental Treatment and the Concept of Minimal Intervention Dentistry. Br Dent J. 2000;188(7):375–382. 4. Tyas MJ et al. Minimal intervention dentistry: A review. Int Dent J. 2000;50:1–12. 5. Banerjee A. Minimal intervention dentistry—Part 1. Br Dent J. 2017;223(3):173–182. 6. Frencken JE et al. ART and its place in modern dentistry. Br Dent J. 2012;212:11–18. 7. Mickenautsch S et al. Survival of ART restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent. 2010;38(11):871–878. 8. Holmgren CJ et al. Ten-year survival of ART restorations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2014;42:373–380. 9. Opdam NJ et al. Longevity of restorations: A systematic review. Oper Dent. 2014;39(5):481–492. 10. Innes NP et al. Selective removal vs complete excavation for deep caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(12):CD011231. 11. Schwendicke F et al. Stepwise vs selective excavation. J Dent Res. 2013;92(4):306–314. 12. Tedesco TK et al. Postoperative sensitivity in MID vs conventional techniques. Oper Dent. 2018;43(2):126–134. 13. Ngo HC et al. Glass ionomer materials and minimally invasive dentistry. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23:3071–3081. 14. Lo ECM et al. Patient acceptance of ART. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35:170–177. 15. Frencken JE. Global impact of ART. Int Dent J. 2009;59(3):81–92. 16. Mickenautsch S. Cost-effectiveness of ART vs amalgam. J Public Health Dent. 2015;75(3):235–242. 17. Banerjee A et al. Technique sensitivity in MID. J Conserv Dent. 2020;23(2):99–107. 18. Mount GJ. Preservation and restoration of tooth structure. Aust Dent J. 2008;53:1–9. 19. Kidd EA. How 'clean' must a cavity be? Caries Res. 2004;38:305–313. 20. Frencken JE, Holmgren CJ. ART for Dental Caries. WHO, 2002. 21. Ngo HC. Biological role of glass ionomer in caries control. Dent Mater. 2010;26:e45–e54. 22. Peumans M et al. Adhesive systems and long-term results. Dent Mater. 2020;36:1–12. 23. Featherstone JD. Prevention and reversal of dental caries. Adv Dent Res. 2009;21:4–8. 24. Schwendicke F et al. Remaining bacteria and secondary caries risk. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):879–884. 25. Ekstrand KR et al. Caries detection and activity assessment. Monogr Oral Sci. 2009;21:43–59. 26. National Oral Health Survey and Fluoride Mapping, India, 2019. 27. Dental Council of India, Annual Report 2023. 28. National Oral Health Programme, MoHFW, 2020. 29. Ayushman Bharat – Health and Wellness Centres, 2021. 30. WHO. Global Oral Health Status Report, 2022. 31. Frencken JE et al. ART and global caries control. Int Dent J. 2009;59(3):81–92. 32. FDI Vision 2030: Delivering Optimal Oral Health for All, 2021. 33. United Nations Environment Programme. Minamata Convention on Mercury, 2013.