© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
J Periodont Res 2013 All rights reserved
JOURNAL OF PERIODONTAL RESEARCH doi:10.1111/jre.12094
Review Article
Root caries: a periodontal perspective
I. Bignozzi1, A. Crea1, D. Capri1, C. Littarru2, C. Lajolo2, D. N. Tatakis3 1
EduPERIO Periodontal Education and Research International Organization, Rome, Italy, 2Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy and 3The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Bignozzi I, Crea A, Capri D, Littarru C, Lajolo C, Tatakis DN. Root caries: a periodontal perspective. J Periodont Res 2013; doi: 10.1111/jre.12094. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd Background and objective: A prevailing dental problem in the periodontal patient is root caries. Specifically, periodontal involvement often results in root surfaces becoming exposed and at risk for this condition. Periodontal therapy often leads to increased gingival recession as well, and the associated increased root caries risk may compromise the long-term success and survival of periodontally treated teeth.This narrative review will address the topic of root caries in the periodontal patient, focusing on unmet research needs. Material and Methods: The Medline database was searched to identify items dealing with root caries, in terms of clinical features, diagnosis, pathogenic mechanisms and histopathology, as well as epidemiology, focusing then on the relationship between root caries and periodontal disorders. Results: Although there is extensive literature on root caries, consensus is lacking regarding certain aspects, such as diagnostic criteria, prevalence within populations and indisputable risk factors. Advancing age could be an aggravating factor in susceptibility to root caries for the periodontal patient; however, definitive evidence in this regard is still missing. Similarly, full awareness of the increased risk of root caries in patients with periodontal disease or long-term periodontal treatment appears to be still lacking. Conclusion: Research regarding root caries in age-specific (elderly) periodontal patients is needed. Improved oral hygiene practices, locally applied preventive measures, good dietary habits and regular dental check-ups are crucial approaches to prevent both periodontal disease progression and root caries. Periodontal patients with root exposure should follow a strict root caries prevention protocol, as an integral component of their periodontal maintenance therapy.
Gingival recession (GR) is defined as “the apical migration of the gingival margin beyond the cemento-enamel junction” (1). This condition is inevitably associated with exposed root surfaces and the consequently increased risk of root caries (RC). GR is a multifactorial condition, with periodontal disease and inappropriate dental therapy being common contributing factors (2).
The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a periodontal perspective on RC in the periodontal patient; specifically, this article will provide an overview of the main pathogenic mechanisms leading to RC and of the preventive and therapeutic approaches to address these tooth root lesions in periodontally involved patients. The review focuses on: the role of periodontal disease and ther-
Isabella Bignozzi, DDS, PhD, EduPERIO Periodontal Education and Research International Organization, Rome, Via Germanico 99, 00192, Italy Tel: +39 065572211 Fax: +39 06636208 e-mail:
[email protected] Key words: periodontal disease; prevention and
control; root caries Accepted for publication March 30, 2013
apy as risk factors for tooth root exposure and RC; the benefits and limitations of periodontal surgical procedures, with or without adjunctive restorative treatments, as a viable prevention and treatment strategy for RC; and the significance of RC as a factor complicating or reducing the long-term prognosis of teeth treated with resective periodontal surgery. In addition, relevant aspects of RC in
2
Bignozzi et al.
age-specific (elderly) populations are addressed. The review also highlights areas of unmet research needs in relation to RC and periodontal involvement.
Root caries: general features RC commonly presents as a progressive lesion found on a tooth root that, due to some degree of periodontal attachment loss, has become exposed to the oral environment (3,4). Sumney et al. (3) defined RC as a cavitation below the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), not including the adjacent enamel, usually discolored, softened, ill-defined and involving both cementum and underlying dentin. RC lesions have been variously described in the literature, where some authors proposed distinctive criteria such as location at the CEJ, position entirely on the root surface (5), spread to undermine the adjacent enamel (6) or extension to more than half on the root cementum (7). RC lesions are most often located on exposed root surfaces, although it has been reported that up to 10–20% of lesions may occur subgingivally (8). Banting et al. (9) reported that the most frequent RC location is close to the gingival margin, but Ravald et al. (10) identified the margin of previous restorations (51%), the CEJ (25%), and points of confluence with other lesions (17%) as areas at risk for RC in periodontally treated patients. Katz et al. (6) reported that RC are found – in descending order of frequency – at buccal and interproximal surfaces of mandibular posterior teeth, interproximal surfaces of maxillary anterior teeth, lingual and interproximal surfaces of maxillary posterior teeth and buccal and interproximal surfaces of mandibular anterior teeth. In contrast, Heegaard et al. (11) reported that RCs are frequently found on labial surfaces and evenly distributed within the dentition. Imazato et al. (12) reported canines and first premolars as the most frequently involved teeth, while Kularatne and Ekanayake (13) indicated instead the molars of both arches as most frequently involved. Regardless of possible rela-
tive differences in prevalence among sites and tooth type, RC can affect the entire dentition. Although RC lesions tend to spread along the CEJ and, in general, along the root surface, more aggressive RC lesions may progress toward the pulp similarly to dentinal caries of the crown (14). Investigators have based the diagnosis and staging of RC lesions on location (3,8,15,16), color (17–19), texture (6,16,20,21), cavitation (21,22) and contour (15,23,24) of the involved surface. Investigators have also tried to distinguish between active and inactive RC lesions based on characteristics cited above (20,25,26). Gaengler et al. (27) classified RC into three main categories, based on clinical and histopathological features. Specifically, depth and progression of the lesion as well as degree of demineralization were considered to distinguish initial, stagnating and progressing lesions. Diagnosis of RC is based primarily on traditional visual–tactile methods, although some reservations have been raised regarding the reliability and repeatability of this RC screening method (26). In this context, radiographs and existing microbiological tests may supplement the clinical evaluation to increase sensitivity and specificity of the RC diagnostic process (28), which remains an issue. The difficulty in rapid screening and early detection of carious lesions is a general concern in cariology. The clinical detection of dental caries at the early stages, which precede cavitation, has always been a challenge. The majority of caries detection systems proposed over the years, both for coronal and RC, used a dichotomous system (cavitation/not) that did not measure the disease process at different stages, but only identified carious lesions at an advanced stage of their natural history (29). Recently, the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) has been developed from the best aspects of previously published systems to address and overcome inconsistencies, set diagnostic threshold and criteria, as well as reliably and repeatedly identify and stage
noncavitated lesions (29). The ICDAS visual detection codes have been proven effective for assessing enamel and dentinal coronal caries in a reliable, valid and reproducible manner in both permanent and deciduous teeth (30,31). Unfortunately, despite the fact that ICDAS includes diagnostic criteria and decision trees specifically designed for RCs, data on the validity and reliability of this ICDAS section are not yet available, because no clinical, laboratory or epidemiological studies have been reported to date in this respect (32). Moreover, RC diagnosis may present unique clinical issues, such as the unreliability of color (33) and texture (28) as reference diagnostic criteria or the reduced accessibility of the affected area to direct view in case of interproximal (6) or subgingival (8) lesions, especially if complicated by the presence of prosthetic crowns (34). As clinical examination may be not sensitive enough to identify RC at the very early clinical stages, several technologies have been proposed to give the clinician the possibility to identify subclinical, noncavitated lesions. The use of emerging technologies aims to anticipate the diagnostic time, allowing clinicians to manage the caries process at an earlier stage of its natural history and take preventive rather than therapeutic measures. These technologies range from fluorescencebased or electrical caries monitors (35,36) to optical coherence tomography (37). These technologies remain to be conclusively validated before their use on a large scale to serve epidemiologic or dental practice needs. In the context of RC diagnosis, conclusive validation of a RC clinical diagnostic system that is comprehensive of all clinical signs, but also rapid, feasible and repeatable, as ICDAS has been shown to be for coronal caries, appears to be necessary. Future research should address the in vitro and in vivo validation of ICDAS for RCs, taking into consideration intra- and inter-examiner agreement, to pursue standardization in diagnosis and staging; studies that address the specific challenges of RC diagnosis should be encouraged.
Root caries: a periodontal perspective
Root caries: etiologic factors The main etiologic factors for onset and progression of RC in the elderly are the presence of bacteria and fermentable carbohydrates on the root surface (38). Lactobacillus, Streptococcus mutans and Actinomyces salivary counts have been significantly correlated with RC occurrence (39). Scanning electron microscopy observations revealed various patterns of bacterial coaggregation in RC lesions (40), while synergistic growth was observed in cocultures of Lactobacillus acidophilus with Streptococcus mutans, Actinomyces israelii with Lactobacillus acidophilus and Actinomyces israelii with Lactobacillus acidophilus and Streptococcus mutans, seemingly resulting in greater acidogenic and cariogenic effects on the root surface (39). Although Candida albicans has been identified in root surface soft lesions, it is not considered an etiologic factor in RC onset (41–43). Subjects with unaffected root surfaces show a more nonspecific microflora, with greater interindividual differences in biofilm composition, while in patients with RC the bacterial plaque of root surfaces tends to have lower interpatient diversity, decreasing further at affected roots (44). Although these findings corroborate the hypothesis of a plaquespecific RC etiology, presently the microbiological agents causing this condition have not been conclusively identified (44). The oral microflora is highly diversified and may comprise up to 600 bacterial species, many of which have not yet been cultured (45,46). Because of their inherent limitations, culture-dependent identification techniques pose the risk of limited or even misleading information, particularly when single site analysis is performed, given the sitespecificity of microflora (44). The use of culture-independent methods has allowed the discovery of microbial species not previously identified in the oral cavity (47). Cultureindependent, open-ended approaches comparing the biofilm of patients/sites with or without RC are advocated. The microbiological profile of patients with
RC with periodontal disease or subjected to long-term periodontal treatment should be characterized as well, to clarify the possible impact of periodontal status on root surface bacterial biofilm and its role in RC pathogenesis.
Root caries: pathogenic mechanism and relevant bacterial metabolic pathways Bacteria metabolize sugar into organic acids, which initiate root surface demineralization by removing calcium and phosphate ions from surface apatite crystals. For enamel, this process takes place as the pH reaches the critical value of 5.5; however, pH 6.4 is sufficient for cementum and dentin demineralization, due to their lower degree of mineralization (48). Under normal circumstances, this loss of calcium and phosphate ions is balanced by the uptake of minerals from the surrounding microenvironment. An unfavorable oral environment, with high levels of pathogenic bacteria and rate of carbohydrate fermentation, may alter the balance of this demineralizing–remineralizing cycle in favor of caries development. In brief, some characteristics of dental plaque have been considered to be relevant with regard to cariogenic potential in several studies over the years; these include the dynamics of pH and free calcium concentration in the bacterial biofilm fluids after exposure to fermentable carbohydrate (49) and collagenase activity (50) with consequent organic matrix degradation (51), long-lasting glycogen synthetic and degradative activities at acidic pH levels (52,53), and the ability to induce significant concentrations of microbial-derived organic acids with high dissociation constants – such as formic and pyruvic acids – in dentin matrix (54). Brailsford et al. (55) suggested that not only the ability to produce acid from carbohydrates (acidogenicity), but also the ability to survive and grow in a low pH environment (aciduricity) might be a virulence determinant crucial for inducing RC. The authors proposed a dynamic model of bacterial etiology, with a progressive
3
selection for a bacterial plaque with significant acidogenic and aciduric properties, that seems to include (but is not limited to) bacteria commonly believed to be involved, such as S. mutans and lactobacilli. Recently, Hashimoto et al. (56) performed a pilot study in six subjects aged 48–73 years and used 16S rRNA sequencing analysis and anaerobic culture on blood agar plates to identify the proportions of protein-degrading and protein-coagulating bacteria in plaque samples collected from RC lesions, healthy supragingival sites and periodontal pockets 5 mm deep. In RC sites, a predominance of Propionibacterium, Actinomyces, Streptococcus, Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium was found, with evidence of prevailing protein-coagulating metabolic pathways, and less represented proteindegrading activities. Subgingival periodontitis sites had the highest proportion of protein-denaturing bacterial strains, with specific predominance of protein-degrading ones, in agreement with previous findings (57). The authors noted that periodontally involved root surfaces, exposed to oral environment and challenged by organic acids derived from fermentable carbohydrates are likely to have their organic components denatured and then degraded through the synergistic action of protein-degrading and protein-coagulating bacterial strains, resulting in the onset and progression of RC (56). In this setting, robust host-derived proteolytic/collagenolytic activity (from periodontally involved gingival tissues) might play a contributory role in the RC process in patients with periodontitis. Although the various pathogenic activities summarized above have been reported in the issue-focused literature, the complete RC pathogenetic puzzle has not yet been solved. Given the apparent significance of proteolysis as a pathogenic mechanism in RC it appears that targeted studies, on larger patient samples, with specific attention to proteindenaturing bacterial activities, as well as their potential association or synergism with host-derived proteases, could be helpful in elucidating the
4
Bignozzi et al.
significance of the various mechanisms presently implicated in RC pathogenesis. In this context, intervention studies targeting host-derived proteolytic enzymes could be of help in illuminating the contribution of periodontally involved tissues to RC pathogenesis.
Root caries: histopathology Root cementum and dentin are structurally different from enamel and coronal dentin and react differently to cariogenic challenges (Table 1) (14,28,58,59). As mentioned above, Gaengler et al. (27) classified RC into initial, stagnating and progressing lesions, based on clinical and histopathological features. Microstructural observations of initial RC lesions reveal an external layer with dentinal tubules partly occluded by peritubular and intratubular dentin deposition and an underlying layer of translucent dentin (60). Dentinal tubules appear
to be sclerosed by precipitation of calcium and phosphate ions, and tubules containing ghosts of bacteria and fine-granular crystals may be observed as well (61). Stagnating RC lesions are characterized by a surface layer with high mineral content (62), absence of viable bacteria in dentin tubules (59,63), impermeability to dyes and isotopes (64) and high resistance to acid and proteolytic enzymes (65) suggesting that arrest and remineralization of active lesions may depend upon the balance between severity of cariogenic bacterial infection of dentin and degree of active sclerosis of dentinal tubules in areas underlying the lesion. Conversely, in progressing RC lesions a superficial layer with diffuse bacterial penetration and an intermediate area of demineralizing dentin may be observed above the translucent dentin (14). Progressing lesions may be clinically distinguished from stagnating ones by their surface texture
and color: progressing RC lesions are commonly characterized by a soft and yellowish discolored surface, while in stagnating RC lesions a hard, brown to black surface may be observed (17,66). In more advanced lesions, the surface zone and demineralizing dentin are commonly not well demarcated, and a massive lateral spread of bacteria into intertubular dentin may be observed, with unaffected dentinal areas becoming continuously undermined. Notably, the mineral content in different zones within the lesion may vary considerably, and this aspect could result in underestimation of lesion depth (67).
Root caries: epidemiology (prevalence, incidence and risk indicators) The apparent lack of unanimous consensus on the criteria to diagnose RC lesions and the variability of RC descriptors used in the literature (28)
Table 1. Comparison between coronal and root caries, adapted from Banting (28) Coronal caries
Root caries
Etiology
Cariogenic bacteria (S. mutans, Lactobacilli) Fermentable carbohydrates
Predisposing factors
Plaque index Frequency of carbohydrate intake Reduced salivary flow Fluoride exposure ( )
Surface tissue Tissue composition (by weight)
Enamel/dentin Enamel: 95–97% mineral 3–5% organic and water Dentin: 65–70% mineral 30–35% organic and water pH 5.5 In enamel: Bacterial invasion followed by demineralization
Cariogenic bacteria (S. mutans, Lactobacilli, Actinomyces) (39) Fermentable carbohydrates (38) Plaque index (80,88,89) Frequency of carbohydrate intake (79) Reduced salivary flow (90,228) Fluoride exposure ( ) (8) GR/CAL (69,79,94,95,97–99) Advanced age (81,206,207) Low socio-economic status (95) Reduced manual dexterity (93) Cognitive decline (229) Cementum/dentin Dentin: 65–70% mineral 30–35% organic and water Cementum 45%–55% mineral 45–55% organic and water pH 6.4 (48) In cementum: Bacterial invasion followed by simultaneous demineralization and proteolysis (14,58,59) In dentin: Bacterial penetration of tubules; demineralization of intertubular dentin and proteolysis of organic component; Sclerosis of dentin tubules, destruction of lumens and peritubular dentin deposition (14,28,58–60)
Demineralization onset Carious process
In dentin: Bacterial penetration of tubules; demineralization of intertubular dentin and proteolysis of organic component; Sclerosis of dentin tubules, destruction of lumens and peritubular dentin deposition GR, gingival recession; CAL, clinical attachment loss.
Root caries: a periodontal perspective result in subjectivity impacted estimates of prevalence, incidence and severity of RC in the studied populations (8,68). The inclusion or exclusion of restored root surfaces and/or recurrent lesions in any assessment introduce further variability on reported prevalence rates (21). Several population characteristics have been investigated as putative RC risk indicators in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (41,69–77); unfortunately, the considerable heterogeneity among studies in terms of analyzed variables (e.g. sample size, follow-up period and analytical techniques) has prevented conclusive validation of a risk model and identification of population features that may significantly increase the risk of RC occurrence (78). In general, all the identified predisposing conditions have to be considered risk indicators rather than actual risk factors for RC occurrence, because of the inability to establish cause–effect relationships through the available descriptive, cross-sectional studies and the limited agreement among reported longitudinal investigations. Table 2 summarizes the results of longitudinal studies, reporting the calculated incidence rates and the variables identified as putative risk factors for RC occurrence. Among the numerous variables that have been investigated over the years as putative RC risk indicators, 30 have been shown to be significantly associated with increased RC incidence in at least one study. Specifically, RC prevalence at baseline, number of teeth at baseline, patient age, plaque index and salivary counts of Lactobacillus and S. mutans are independent variables that have been repeatedly shown to have a positive association with new RC occurrence during a 1–10 year (median = 3) incidence period (78). Steele et al. (79) conducted a multivariate analysis on 462 patients (405 community-living; 57 institutionalized) aged 65 years; they used the presence of primary RC as dependent variable and behavioral or background characteristics as independent variables. Based on this study, there
seemed to be a greater likelihood to develop RC for patients with a higher mean frequency of sugar intake, with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.4, infrequent tooth cleaning (OR = 4.7) and ineffective tooth cleaning in presence of a partial denture (OR = 1.6). The most relevant background risk variables were severe ( 9 mm) loss of clinical attachment (OR = 2.4) and exposed roots (OR = 1.05, per “vulnerable” tooth), while having sound coronal restorations was somehow protective (OR = 0.94 per restored tooth). A further stepwise multiple regression analysis was carried out considering as dependent variable the root caries index for decay, calculated as the proportion of all vulnerable teeth, i.e. with some degree of exposed root surface, being affected by active decay. Under such analysis, the habit of sucking sweets to relieve dry mouth (b = 0.101, p = 0.037), living in an institution (b = 0.172, p = 0.000) or not attending regular dental checkups (b = 0.098, p = 0.002) were the behavioral conditions associated with RC occurrence, in addition to the previously identified variables of wearing a partial denture and having infrequent personal tooth cleaning. The potential contribution of some sociodemographic parameters to RC prevalence may be hypothesized but it is not easily evaluable due to lack of homogeneity among the relevant studies. Several cohort studies have revealed a wide range of incidence rates, varying by population characteristics, sample size and study length. Despite such differences in incidence rate, older, medically compromised or institutionalized subjects and subjects with advanced periodontal disease commonly exhibit higher RC incidence compared to the general adult population (9,22,41,42,70,75,80–83). Social, psychological and cognitive status also seems to affect oral health conditions in noninstitutionalized elderly subjects. Avlund et al. (84) examined 157 independently living subjects, aged over 80 years, and reported substantial differences in oral health – measured as active coronal caries, active RC, edentulism and regular use of dental services – in two
5
subgroups having different social class and education. In two other studies involving similar populations of community-dwelling individuals aged 80 years or older, cognitive decline, reduced functional ability as well as unsatisfactory social relations were significantly related to higher risk of active coronal caries and RC and, in general, poorer oral health and infrequent use of dental services (85,86). Therefore, on the basis of the available literature, the following variables should be considered among the main local factors involved in RC pathogenesis: high salivary counts of pathogenic microorganisms (41,87); high percentage of dental surfaces harboring plaque (43,88,89); unrestored coronal caries and RC (69,75,88); and factors promoting plaque accumulation, such as presence of restorations (10) and reduced salivary flow (90). The population’s systemic and behavioral conditions that might play a role in RC occurrence or progression include advanced age (41,72–74), low socio-economic status and educational level (84), discontinuity in oral health care and dental check-up (79,86), frequency of carbohydrate intake (91,92), impaired manual dexterity and cognitive decline (85,93). It must be recognized that, despite the fact that disease prevalence is frequently used as a rough estimate of risk, incidence data from longitudinal studies (i.e. cohort studies) may provide a higher level of evidence and more reliable risk estimates. Surprisingly, the contribution of periodontal parameters to RC has received limited attention. Only a few studies (69,94,95) considered clinical attachment loss (CAL) and/or GR among the targeted putative risk indicators. Nevertheless, considering that GR is almost endemic in the adult population, as well as a supposedly necessary condition for RC occurrence in the majority of cases, it may not be proper, from a methodological point of view, to include GR as an independent variable in a risk model (78). However, it is undeniable that, due to the unique spatial relationship between root surface and marginal periodontium, RC and periodontal
23
99
130
27
96
55
493
Powell et al., 1991 (230)
Ravald and Birkhed, 1992 (88)
Joshi et al., 1993 (89)
Ravald et al., 1993 (80)
Scheinin et al., 1994 (43)
Lawrence et al., 1995 (95)
Locker, 1996 (81)
Study
36
36
36
29% (blacks) 39% (whites)
27.4%
65 years old community-dwelling 234 blacks 218 whites
50 years old community-dwelling
51%
88.9%
144
46 years old community-dwelling periodontally treated 47–79 years old community-dwelling
50%
61.9%
RC incidence (% subjects affected)
50.7%
33–76 years old community-dwelling, periodontally treated
65 years old instituzionalized
Population characteristics
9–24 Middle-aged/older (median = 16) community-dwelling
24
12
Observation Sample period size (N) (months)
Logistic regression
Logistic regression
Stepwise multiple regression Logistic regression
Stepwise logistic regression
Stepwise multiple regression
Logistic regression
Risk model Variables Gender RCIlog Variables Baseline RC Plaque score No. teeth Variables Baseline RC No. teeth Plaque score Variables Plaque score Smoking Variables rDFS Candida Lactobacilli Variables Blacks: RPD Root fragments Average GR P. Intermedia Impact on appearance Daily activities Whites: Worst GR Average PD Worst GR + average PD Antihistamines Calcium therapy Age-related problems (> 40) Employement status Variables DFS model: Baseline RC DS model Age Regular check-up Baseline RC
Significant predictors
Table 2. Summary of cohort longitudinal studies reporting incidence rates and risk modelling (continued)
p < 0.001 p < 0.05 p < 0.05 p < 0.05
2.3 2.5 1.9 2.2
p-value p = 0.0002 p = 0.0069 p = 0.0246 p-value p = 0.004 p = 0.01 p = 0.02 p-value p = 0.00 p < 0.05
p-value
[1.52–7.76] [1.28–8.58] [0.75–4.12] [1.27–5.92] [1.09–4.60] [1.12–2.5]
Partial correlation 0.43 0.24 0.24 OR (95% CI) 1.14 (1.05–1.23) 2.63 (1.22–5.66) 2.69 (1.11–6.50)
4.5 [1.95–10.39] 3.81 [1.24–11.69] 3.35 [1.28–8.76] 4 [1.45–11.07] 2.45 [1.08–5.57] 4.99 [2.17–11.47] 3.17 [1.32–7.61] OR
3.43 3.31 1.75 2.74 2.24 1.67
OR (95% CI) 12.8 [2.8–58.5] 2.8 [0.9–8.1] 8.6 [2.4–31.2] OR (95% CI)
Regr Coeff (SE) 1.06 [0.41] 0.42 [0.15] R2 0.18 0.23 0.28 Estimate (SE) 0.13 [0.04] 0.97 [0.39] 0.99 [0.45]
6 Bignozzi et al.
36
24
12
24
120
12
55
723
102
Gilbert et al., 2001 (75)
Chalmers et al., 216 2002 (229)
373
Powell et al., 1998 (42)
Takano et al., 2003 (69)
Fure et al., 2004 (41)
S anchez-Garcıa 531 et al., 2011 (94)
77%
39% (blacks) 52% (whites)
RC incidence (% subjects affected)
Poisson regression
Logistic regression
Risk model NR
Significant predictors
Variables Bacterial countslog Asian ethnicity 45 years old 36% Logistic Variables community-dwelling regression Baseline RC Baseline FS No. teeth No. lost teeth Older, institutionalized 62.1% (dementia) Linear Variables 103 dementia affected 44.2 (control) regression Gender (male) 113 control Dementia 70 years old community- 35.9% Logistic Variables dwelling regression Baseline RC Prosthetic crow CAL OH habits 65–85 years old 12.4% Stepwise Variables community-dwelling regression Lactobacilli log No. teeth Drugs/day 60 years old 21.7% Bivariate and Variables multivariate logistic Limitations in BDLA regression Smoking Self-perceived oral health Dental mouthwash (no) Mutans streptococci (‡105 CFU⁄ ml) DMFT index ( 17) Exposed root surfaces ( 6) RCI 8% CAL 4 mm
65 years old community-dwelling 379 blacks 323 whites 60 years old community-dwelling
Population characteristics
b-coefficient 2.78 0.85 1.76 Multivariate OR (95% CI) 3.1 [1.0–9.5] 2.0 [1.0–4.1] 1.4 [0.8–2.5] 1.7 [1.0–2.8] 2.1 [1.1–4.0] 1.3 [0.8–2.3] 5.4 [3.2–9.1] 1.8 [1.1–3.1] 0.8 [0.5–1.4]
1.6 [1.0–2.5] 1.6 [1.0–2.7] 1.6 [1.0–2.5] 5.1 [3.2–8.2] 1.6 [1.1–2.5] 1.6 [1.0–2.5]
Rel Risk (95% C) 1.29 [1.10–1.53] 1.85 [1.16–2.95] Estimate (SE) 0.83 [0.24] 1.29 [0.22] 0.64 [0.30] 0.46 [0.22] F 0.059 10.824
Regr Coeff (SE) 0.258 [0.085] 0.617 [0.237] OR (95% CI) 2.3 [1.4–3.7] 3.6 [2.4–5.7] 1.9 [1.1–3.4] 1.6 [1.0–2.5] b (SE) 0.071[0.291] 0.945[0.287] OR (95% CI) 3.71[2.07–6.67] 2.33[1.24–4.39] 2.32[1.31–4.12] 2.05[1.26–3.35] Partial correlation 0.37 0.45 0.27 Bivariate OR (95% CI) 2.2 [0.9–5.0] 2.0 [1.1–3.7] 1.6 [1.0–2.7]
NR
p-value p = 0.002 p = 0.009 p-value p = 0.01 p = 0.01 p = 0.03 p = 0.04 p-value p < 0.8 p = 0.001 p-value p = 0.00 p = 0.009 p = 0.004 p = 0.004
RCI, Root Caries Index; Regr Coeff, Regression Coefficient; SE, Standard Error; CI, Confidence Interval; RC, Root Caries; rDFS, root Decayed Filled Surface; RPD, Removable Partial Denture; GR, Gingival recession; PD, Probing Depth; DFS, Decayed Filled Surface; DS, Decayed Surface; NR, Not Reported; Rel Risk, Relative Risk; DMFT, Decayed Missing Filled Teeth; FS, Filled Surface; CAL, Clinical Attachment Loss; OH habits, Oral Hygiene habits; BDLA, Basic Daily Life Activity.
60
Lawrence et al., 702 1996 (22)
Study
Observation Sample period size (N) (months)
Table 2. (continued)
Root caries: a periodontal perspective
7
8
Bignozzi et al.
disorders often coexist, not only as concurrent events, but also as conditions linked by two-way cause–effect relationships.
Root caries: relationship with periodontal disorders In the context of RC predisposing clinical factors, particular attention should be paid to patients with periodontal diseases. CAL and GR have been recognized as relevant predisposing factors in the onset of RC, given the increased vulnerability of exposed root surfaces. RC is considered a serious problem affecting the longterm prognosis of both treated and untreated periodontally involved teeth (96). Epidemiologic as well as large clinical trials agree that presence of GR and CAL are associated with a higher incidence of RC (79,97–99). Fadel et al. in a recent crosssectional study (100) reported a high prevalence of RC lesions and high caries risk rates in 20% of patients referred for periodontal treatment, whether affected by gingivitis (mean age 25.8), mild-to-moderate periodontitis (mean age 41.9), or severe periodontitis (mean age 49.7); the prevalence of root lesions (caries and/ or fillings) was 9%, 15% and 29% for each group, respectively. However, estimated RC risk profiles appeared correlated with a combination of several factors and not specifically with periodontal disease severity. The undeniable correlation between periodontal disorders and RC incidence rate emerged also from a RC prediction model involving a population of 698 subjects aged 60 years, where it has been shown that having 75 years of age (OR = 1.3, CI 95% 0.8–2.0), 6 exposed roots (OR = 5.1, CI 95%: 3.2–8.2) or 4 mm CAL (OR = 1.6, CI 95%: 1.0–2.5) are significant risk predictors for RC development in a 12-month period (94). Root caries: relationship with gingival recession
As discussed above, despite the fact that a small proportion of RC lesions
can occur subgingivally (8), in most cases GR might be considered a necessary condition for RC development (101,102). GR is highly prevalent in patients with either high (2,103) or poor (104,105) oral hygiene standard, but presents with different characteristics. Miller (106) categorized GR defects into four classes, based on the relation of the gingival margin to the mucogingival junction and the degree of interproximal CAL, highlighting how these clinical variables concerning GR are significant for root coverage outcomes (106). Notably, in patients with good oral hygiene and without signs of inflammatory periodontal disease, GR is commonly located at buccal tooth surfaces and putative causative factors include traumatic tooth-brushing (107–109), eccentric orthodontic movement (110), tooth malposition (111), presence of alveolar bone dehiscence (112), or high frenal attachment (113). In this subgroup of patients, GR defects are not associated with interproximal CAL and are typically classified as either Miller I or Miller II (2,103,114) (Fig. 1A); these types of GR defects are much more likely to fully resolve (i.e. to exhibit complete root coverage)
A
after appropriate periodontal plastic surgery procedures (106). Conversely, GR that manifests as a component of inflammatory periodontitis is associated with interproximal CAL (105), and may involve buccal, lingual and interproximal surfaces (2,105) (Fig. 1B). This type of GR lesion typically belongs to Miller III or IV class (103), and is, therefore, unlikely to be completely resolved following regenerative periodontal surgical intervention (106,115). Regardless of the underlying etiology or associated attachment loss, GR lesions predispose to several different complications, such as hypersensitivity (116), loss of esthetic appearance (117), tooth abrasion (118), plaque retention (119) and RC (120). The RC prevalence rate in subjects with GR was significantly higher (90%) than that (20–40%) reported in matched recession-free subjects (120).
Root caries: relationship with nonsurgical periodontal therapy The interrelationship between RC and periodontal disease extends beyond the pathological entities per se.
B
C
Fig. 1. (A) Patient with good oral hygiene and multiple deep Miller I and Miller II gingival recession defects. (B) Severe Miller III and Miller IV gingival recession defects in a patient with periodontitis. (C) Severe periodontitis treated by osseous surgery (left panel); the resulting gingival recession is evident at the 1 wk postoperative visit (right panel).
Root caries: a periodontal perspective Periodontal therapy alone may lead to GR and thus to an increased vulnerability of the root surface to caries. While the crucial role of subgingival mechanical debridement (scaling and root planing) in the treatment of periodontitis is undisputed (121), the occurrence of GR development or increase following mechanical instrumentation has been widely reported (122–124). GR development or progression following scaling and root planing, especially for initially shallow or moderately deep probing depths (125), is particularly evident in patients with thin gingiva (126). Cause-related periodontal therapy, through ultrasonic or hand instrumentation, acts on the root surface by removing or exposing cementum and dentin; these tissues are characterized by a lower degree of mineralization, limited amount of fluoride and poorer caries resistance than enamel (48). Furthermore, repeated professional oral hygiene procedures may lead to an imbalance of normal competitive microflora, promoting the growth of cariogenic bacterial colonies on the root surface (127). Ravald et al. (10,80,128,129) studied longitudinally the incidence of RC and the main reasons for tooth loss in a population of periodontally treated patients at four (128), eight (10), 12 (80) and 14 (129) years of maintenance periodontal therapy. The mean age of patients was 52 10.6 years (range 30–78) at baseline and 64 8.3 years (range 49–91) at the final examination. During the first 4 years of follow-up, approximately two-thirds of patients developed RC lesions. This incidence of new RC lesions was confirmed during all observation periods, exhibiting a certain degree of clustering in some patients and sporadic or recurrent correlation with advanced age (10,80,128,129), salivary counts of S. mutans and Lactobacilli (10,80,128,129), plaque score (10,80), dietary habits (10), previous RC experience (10,128), low saliva secretion rates (128) and smoking habit (80,129). In these studies, patients with ongoing periodontal problems were more prevalent (49%) than patients with RC alone (3%), and recurrence of periodontal
breakdown was the main cause of tooth loss during the period of observation. However, a combination of periodontal problems and RC was evident in 20% of the considered population, and RC lesions alone accounted for 13% of failing teeth (129). It should be emphasized that subgingival mechanical debridement is indicated, and must be performed, only in pathologically involved periodontal sites; subgingival instrumentation performed on physiologic crevices, with shallow probing depth values and absence of bleeding on probing, may result in iatrogenic CAL and GR, which could promote long-term RC occurrence. The nonsurgical therapy of periodontitis may include systemic and/or local chemotherapeutic agents that target either the pathogenic biofilm or host-derived catabolic processes (130– 133). Although most of the chemotherapeutic drug studies are of short duration, which precludes consideration of RC development, even studies of sufficient duration ( 12 mo) have not included RC assessment (134–137). Therefore, the potential impact of periodontal chemotherapeutics to RC incidence or prevention remains to be investigated.
Root caries: relationship with surgical periodontal therapy Although surgical pocket elimination remains an important component of periodontal treatment, it can be anticipated that periodontal surgery, especially when incorporating resective procedures, will have an even greater impact than nonsurgical therapy in promoting increased RC incidence. Kaldahl et al. (138,139) followed 82 patients with chronic periodontitis (initial mean age 43.5 years) treated by either coronal scaling, root planing, modified Widman surgery, or osseous resection surgery in a fourquadrant split-mouth design, evaluating probing depth, CAL and GR after 2 (138) and 7 (139) years of maintenance therapy. In general, osseous resective surgery produced both the greatest probing depth decrease and the greatest amount of GR compared with other therapies, showing the
9
worst probing depth/GR ratio in sites of medium (5–6 mm) and shallow (1–4 mm) probing depth. Even though it is important to emphasize that sites treated by resective surgery seem to have the least incidence of breakdown during long-term followup (139), it is fair to point out that the potential significant amount of GR resulting from this surgical approach (Fig. 1C) may constitute a limit of the obvious and generally recognized clinical benefit of osseous surgery in certain cases. In this context, when surgical intervention is deemed necessary, an alternative to osseous surgery, such as open flap debridement, may be considered to gain access to the affected root surfaces without drastically changing the periodontal tissue architectural relationships, thus minimizing post-surgical GR occurrence. Furthermore, as two determining factors for the prognosis of surgically treated sites are the quality of the patient’s postoperative plaque control and the frequency of maintenance care appointments (140,141), patients who have difficulty in maintaining a high standard of self-performed daily oral hygiene and/or regular attendance for dental check-ups are not the best candidates for resective periodontal surgery (or any periodontal surgical therapy, for that matter).
Other site-specific putative predisposing factors; noncarious cervical lesions In sites affected by GR, it is not uncommon to observe an associated noncarious cervical lesion (NCCL) on the exposed root surface. NCCL is defined as the wear of tooth substance along the gingival margin of the tooth, due to mechanical abrasion, erosion or abfraction. The different underlying etiologies result in NCCL with diverse clinical characteristics. Dental abrasion is frequently associated with repeated mechanical trauma from compulsive, excessive toothbrushing and use of abrasive toothpaste or hard toothbrush. The frequency and duration of toothbrushing, force applied and structure
10
Bignozzi et al.
of dental tissues influence the degree of tooth wear in each individual (142). Root surface abrasion lesions appear as well-demarcated cervical concavities, usually more broad than deep, showing a hard and smooth sur-
A
face (Fig. 2A). Dental erosion is tooth structure dissolution without bacterial involvement, due to intrinsic (e.g. gastro-esophageal reflux) or extrinsic (e.g. acidic foods such as fruit juices) acid sources (143). Root surface
B
C
D
E
F
Fig 2. (A) Patient with multiple noncarious cervical lesions, likely due to mechanical trauma from horizontal toothbrushing (abrasion lesions). (B) Gingival recession defects associated with noncarious cervical lesions apparently due to erosion from acidic foods and drinks. (C) Noncarious cervical lesions probably related to occlusal imbalance (abfractions). Frontal view (left panel) and lateral view (right panel); note the wear facets on canines and premolars. (D) Advanced noncarious cervical lesion resulting in pulpal exposure (endodontically treated left central incisor) in elderly patient; note the good level of oral hygiene and superimposed inactive carious lesion. (E) Carious cervical lesion superimposed on noncarious cervical lesion. (F) Multiple restored noncarious cervical lesions and coexisting buccal and interproximal root caries, under conditions of suboptimal oral hygiene, in an elderly patient.
erosion lesions appear as not welldemarcated, hard and quite smooth areas (Fig. 2B). Abfraction lesions appear to be the consequence of tooth bending and strain, possibly due to eccentric occlusal forces (144). They commonly present as deep, narrow, v-shaped notches on the facial aspect of the cervical area (Fig. 2C). Recent clinical and experimental findings suggest that it is the synergistic action of the various processes cited above, with mechanical causes such as abrasion and abfraction being potentiated by chemical dental erosion, which results in tooth structure wear, as opposed to the action of a single damaging mechanism (145). NCCLs have the potential to evolve and in later stages result in dentin hypersensitivity (146), severe loss of tooth structure integrity and pulpal involvement (Fig. 2D). More importantly, for the context of the present topic, NCCLs may be complicated by superimposed RCs (147) (Fig. 2E). It is widely recognized that NCCL and RC are distinct nosologic entities, and risk models generally do not consider NCCL as a predisposing factor for RC (78). Nevertheless, these two pathological conditions share some clinical features (such as progressive impaired structural integrity of cervical dental hard tissues), pathogenic factors (such as cavitation from intermittent demineralization processes (148) and long-term consequences, as mentioned above; these shared traits establish a conceptual link between NCCL and RC. In this context, it is reasonable to postulate that the presence of NCCL, i.e. concave area near the gingival margin, may promote bacterial plaque accumulation on tissues with decreased microstructural resistance and thus result in RC development (149). Specifically focusing on dental erosion, long-term high intake of acidic drinks or foods has been shown to reduce surface hardness of enamel and dentin (150). Frequent exposure to erosive substances, in the presence of good oral hygiene, results primarily in dental erosion without caries. Hard tissue loss after acid exposure and immediate toothbrushing is significantly
Root caries: a periodontal perspective greater than acid erosion alone (151,152) and, paradoxically, it would be advisable to avoid toothbrushing for at least 30 min after an erosive attack to protect dentin (153). Nevertheless, in a patient who presents with multiple NCCLs a decline in selfperformed oral hygiene standard can quickly lead to the onset of deep RC lesions superimposed on the previous inactive ones (154) (Fig. 2F).
Root caries: preventive and therapeutic considerations From a clinical standpoint, there is general agreement in the literature that deep cervical lesions, regardless of their carious or noncarious nature, require a full understanding of their etiology; this will allow the clinician to provide the patient with appropriate information on lifestyle changes and adoption of preventive measures (145), as well as proper restorative treatment to preclude further damage (154). Preventive measures
Proper preventive measures should be taken based on the estimated level of risk for the individual patient. In general, all modifiable behaviors that have been implicated, as outlined above, in the multifactorial model of pathogenesis should be addressed, to the extent possible. Particularly, prevention of RC, similar to coronal caries, is based on modification of harmful dietary habits, inhibition of demineralization, promotion of remineralization and reduction of the cariogenic dental biofilm (155). The high consumption of low molecular weight carbohydrates, especially in industrialized countries, appears to be strongly implicated in the observed high caries prevalence, as organic acids resulting from the anaerobic metabolism of fermentable dietary sugars is the main cause of demineralization and cavity development (91). Accordingly, patient education regarding diet, i.e. avoiding high-sugar containing foods and snacks and limiting the frequency of sugar intake, should be an essential component of a caries prevention
program (91). Nevertheless, sugar restriction may be a difficult goal to achieve for most individuals (156), considering that sweet taste may be responsible for addictive-like behaviors (157). A possible support strategy to address this concern is to replace fermentable carbohydrates with noncariogenic sugar alcohols such as sorbitol or xylitol, to decrease sugar intake and thus reduce caries risk (158). The replacement of sugar with xylitol was able to produce a substantial (85%) decrease in caries incidence in an adult Finnish population during a 2-year observation period (159). Furthermore, when polyol sweeteners are delivered in the form of chewing gum, the chewing action in itself and the resulting salivary flow stimulation may provide further protective effects (160). Accordingly, xylitol and sorbitol in chewing gum or candies were able to significantly reduce RC incidence in a geriatric patient population sample over a 6–30 month period (161). Although the widespread adoption of a xylitol regimen for caries prevention appears to be nonsustainable, because of low cost-effectiveness (160), this prevention strategy remains viable when applied to highrisk populations such as disabled, elderly and most frail individuals (155). Fluorides are widely recognized to be a key factor in the prevention and control of dental caries, through inhibition of demineralization and enhancement of remineralization. Topical fluoride treatments may be indicated, especially in patients with reduced salivary flow or impaired selfperformed oral hygiene ability (162), but higher fluoride concentrations seem to be required for remineralization of RC in comparison with coronal caries (163). There are several options available, such as daily 5000 ppm sodium fluoride toothpaste or 0.025–0.1% fluoride mouth rinses, neutral 1.2% sodium fluoride gel (in a 5-min tray), as well as sodium fluoride or silver diamine fluoride varnishes applied on to the exposed root surfaces three to four times a year; finally, fluoride tablets, chewing gum, toothpick and flossing have been
11
proposed, although their use may be questioned due to unfavorable cost– benefit ratio (164). Griffin et al. (165), analyzing through a systematic review with metaanalysis the effectiveness of various forms of fluorides in preventing caries in adults, reported that any form of fluoride administration (self- and professional application or water fluoridation) results in a RC prevented fraction of 22% per year. There is some evidence (166) of a synergistic effect of amorphous calcium phosphate and casein amorphous calcium phosphate complexes with fluoride, through the induction of a favorable chemical gradient of calcium and phosphorous at the tooth surface able to induce remineralization and reduced incidence of RC even in patients at particular risk (167). Recently, encouraging in vitro results have been obtained testing a proanthocyanidin-rich grape extract, a widely available naturally occurring plant metabolite, in reducing root dentin demineralization during a pH cycling artificial caries protocol (168,169). Based on the principle that proper mineralization of a collagenbased tissue (i.e. root dentin) strictly depends on structure and stability of its extracellular organic matrix, the mechanism of action hypothesized for a proanthocyanidin-rich grape extract in inhibiting RC relies on increased collagen cross-links and reduced enzymatic degradation of the root collagen matrix (168). A synergistic effect with fluoride has been speculated, but further studies are needed to deepen the knowledge about this promising natural agent. Moreover, as already underlined, it is essential to motivate the patient to perform satisfactory oral hygiene routines and attend regular dental checkups, as a good standard of oral hygiene is a necessary condition in any caries prevention program, but especially when addressing RC prevention (170) in the periodontal patient. Focusing on patients with a history of periodontal disease and therapy, typically exhibiting generalized CAL and numerous tooth surfaces with GR, the resulting anatomical complications must be
12
Bignozzi et al.
considered a nonmodifiable risk factor; however, the patient’s motivation to achieve a high standard of oral hygiene, along with close monitoring of at-risk sites, integrated with the patient’s periodontal maintenance program, may be useful in preventing RC occurrence (171). Antimicrobial agents, such as chlorhexidine, have been investigated as additional tools in reducing cariogenic oral biofilm (172), but – specifically considering RC prevention – the current lack of evidence on long-term clinical outcomes and ascertained side effects makes chlorhexidine devoid of any added clinical benefit compared to conventional and well-established preventive measures, i.e. diet modification, fluoride delivery and improved oral hygiene (173). In patients with impaired salivary gland function, due to aging, radiotherapy, diseases or medications, the administration of salivary substitutes to buffer the acidic environment and inhibit adhesion and growth of bacteria might also be of help (174,175). The general preventive measures considered above are useful and effective in preventing RC by reducing the impact of risk factors throughout the oral cavity. In addition to general prevention, it is possible to implement site-specific measures that, from a periodontal standpoint, could represent an important clinical strategy to prevent and arrest RC (176–178). Whenever possible, the ideal sitespecific approach to RC prevention in GR cases, with or without initial RC or NCCL, is the restitutio ad integrum of the root–periodontium complex (102). Complete root coverage will significantly diminish, if not eliminate, the possibility of RC development and progression for the specific site. State of the art of root coverage periodontal techniques have been the subject of several clinical trials (179–183) and systematic reviews (184–186). Although great progress has been made in the surgical treatment of GR, and the available techniques show excellent results (185,186), it must be emphasized that most, if not all, of the published studies have not considered specifically the patient with a history of inflammatory periodontal
involvement. Therefore, clinical studies focusing on the periodontal management of GR in this class of patients are warranted. Given the progressing aging of the population, such studies will be particularly applicable to periodontal practice. Restorative therapeutic approaches
The potential consequences of both RC and NCCL, e.g. dental pulp and/ or marginal periodontal tissue involvement, hypersensitivity and compromised aesthetics, demand a timely and comprehensive therapeutic approach for each lesion. Such a site-specific approach may include the use of restorations (Fig. 3). Glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, resin composite, fluoride-containing resin composite or compomer restorations may be recommended based on individual patient risk (187). In this context, it should be emphasized that unique aspects of the tooth cervical area, i.e. less than ideal characteristics as adhesion substrate (188), concentration of biomechanical stress (189), spatial relationship with the marginal periodontium and difficulties in access and field isolation, may render challenging the achievement of perfect marginal seal and long-term success of composite restorations used to treat RC. However, as restorative issues are not the focus of this review, the reader is referred to specific sources on this topic (154,190). Periodontal therapeutic approaches
Deep RC may occur, involving deep layers of dentin and/or affecting the root at a more apical level than the cervical area or the marginal gingiva. In such cases, the maximum apical extension of RC should be carefully considered to achieve complete removal of the decayed tissue and proper cavity restoration. RC that extends below the gingival margin may impinge on the biologic width and interfere with the gingival attachment apparatus (191). A deeply placed restorative margin, violating the biologic width, will result in loss of periodontal support
(192). Tal et al. (193) considered in a beagle dog model class V cavities prepared so that the apical margin was in close spatial relationship with the alveolar crest (test) and other cavities not exceeding the CEJ (control). All cavities were restored and, at 1 year following treatment, GR and bone loss were significantly greater at test sites in comparison with controls. More recently, G€ unay et al. (194) reported increased inflammatory parameters and periodontal attachment loss at prosthetic restorative margins placed in proximity of the bone crest, i.e. within the biologic width. There is general agreement in recommending that when RC extends below the gingival margin the restoration must be preceded by, or be part of, a crown lengthening procedure (Fig. 4) to re-establish a proper biologic width apical to the proposed restoration margin (195).
Root caries: a risk factor for tooth loss after periodontal therapy From a periodontal perspective RC is significant not only because periodontal disease (attachment loss) and therapy lead to conditions (i.e. GR) that favor RC development, as outlined in the previous paragraphs, but also because RC can be a leading factor compromising the long-term outcomes of definitive periodontal therapy. Longitudinal studies have shown that in cases of advanced periodontal disease, where resective therapeutic approaches (such as osseous surgery combined with root amputation, hemisection or tunneling procedures) have been employed, it is not uncommon for the initially successful therapeutic outcome to be compromised long-term, primarily because of complications other than periodontal ones, and especially because of RC (196). In this regard, several authors reported RC occurrence to account for 7.9% (202) to 25% (203), and up to 50% (204) of the nonsalvageable complications leading to tooth extraction. The frequency of periodontally involved teeth treated by resective surgery and subsequently condemned
Root caries: a periodontal perspective A
B
C
D
E
G
F
H
Fig. 3. Root caries occurrence in patient with periodontitis treated with resective surgery and root amputation; clinical view at baseline (A) and at 3 mo (B), 2 years (C), 3 years (D) and 6 years (E, F) postoperatively. Recommended restorative procedure was performed (G, H) following the long-awaited patient consent.
because of RC suggests that patients with periodontitis who are candidates for osseous surgery must undergo a stringent assessment for all endodontics, prosthetic and periodontal prognostic factors before implementing such a treatment approach (197). Ultimately, the level of patient compliance and feasibility of an adequate maintenance program, in conjunction with an individualized caries prevention protocol during follow-up, will allow the patient who received resective periodontal therapy to remain
free of RC and retain the function of his/her periodontally treated dentition.
Root caries and periodontal issues in the elderly Longer life expectancy and decreased edentulism result in an ever-increasing number of elderly patients retaining their natural dentition in advanced age and being in need of special dental services (198). Aging is associated with changes, such as reduced manual
13
dexterity and altered oral anatomical structures, which can hinder the performance of proper oral hygiene. Senescence is also associated with reduced salivary flow, because of agerelated structural salivary gland changes (199,200) or functional impair ment induced by various systemic disorders and medications. Hyposalivation is a debilitating condition that can potentially induce difficulty in chewing and speaking, as well as taste loss, dysphagia, and increased incidence of dental caries and soft tissue pathologies (201,202). Furthermore, other factors can also contribute to deficiencies in the structural integrity of teeth in elderly people through an incremental effect over the years: dietary acid exposure, oral parafunctional habits, occlusal trauma, attrition, abrasion from toothpastes or powders, erosion by alteration of oral pH due to medications or gastro-esophageal reflux (145). Consistently, the prevalence of RC in adults has been shown to progressively increase with age (203–205). The 1988–1991 NHANES III national survey (203) provided evidence for RC prevalence among nearly 6726 people; 55.9% of patients aged 75 years had one or more RC lesions, with severity being agedependent. The NHANES III study established that, past the age of 34 years, the expected probability for a person of having one or more decayed or filled root surface will be 20–22% less than his age. This means that for a person aged 65 years, a 43– 45% probability of having one or more RC may be assumed. More recently, different prevalence rates in the elderly have been reported in the literature, ranging from 28.4% to 96.5% (12,13,206–210). This wide range of RC prevalence probably reflects the highly diverse ethnic, cultural and social background of the populations examined in the aforementioned studies; such differences are likely to represent different dietary habits, standards of oral hygiene, and other relevant parameters, such as availability of water fluoridation, community-dwelling or institutionalized subjects, and urban or rural
14
Bignozzi et al.
A
B
C
D
Fig. 4. Root caries under fixed dental prosthesis; note the extension of the carious lesion apical to the gingival margin. Clinical view at initial presentation (A), during crown lengthening surgery (B), intraoperative restoration application (C), and 3 mo postoperatively (D).
inhabitants. Nevertheless, it is clear that RC in the elderly is a problem with a global impact. In older adults it is not unusual to find RC, especially at the margin of previous prosthetic restorations, which often extend below the gingival margin. Increased RC susceptibility of the elderly may be due to age-specific behavioral and socio-demographic characteristics, as mentioned above. However, from a clinical point of view, the main local factor that may be associated with increased RC prevalence is root surfaces becoming exposed simply due to aging or progressive periodontal disease (41,69). Coherently, in periodontal patients the estimated RC risk profile appears correlated with a number of predisposing factors but as reported above, the prevalence increases with the amount of CAL and with advancing age (108). A correlation with advanced age recurs also in studies, including periodontally involved patients receiving long-term supportive periodontal therapy (10,80,128,129). In this regard, the cumulative effect over time of repeated professional root instrumentation procedures should be considered.
With respect to resective periodontal surgery, age per se is not a contraindication for this approach, which – when used in older adults – seems to provide clinical outcomes similar to those obtained in younger patients (140). However, careful consideration concerning the advisability of performing resective surgery in the elderly patient is necessary (211). Considering the documented increased RC risk with advancing age (41,69,80) and greater GR (79,97,99), the overall therapeutic advantage of radical surgical pocket elimination should be carefully weighed in the context of the overall dental health management of the older adult. As previously mentioned, furcationinvolved molars treated with flap surgery and root resection are prone to the development of a series of complications, including RC (197,212,213). It is reasonable to assume that in elderly populations the coexistence of several predisposing factors, such as hyposalivation or impaired manual dexterity may result in increased postoperative RC incidence; nevertheless, targeted studies on age-specific populations, which may corroborate this assumption, are still lacking (196).
Similarly, knowledge on some other issues regarding RC in the elderly is still scarce. Current models of RC microbiological etiology are based mainly on studies of young and middle-aged adults. Bacterial species other than those commonly found have been isolated in RC lesions of elderly patients (214), suggesting that the putative RC etiologic agents in older adults belong to microbial communities more complex than previously presumed (44,87). Recently Preza et al. (215), using an rRNAbased, culture-independent, microarray technique in a sample of 41 patients aged 70 or older, did not find specific strains to be consistently associated with RC, suggesting the possibility of a certain degree of intersubject variability regarding RC bacterial etiology in this age-specific setting and the need for additional research. Moreover, although the caries process is endemic in the elderly and more than 50% of all individuals retaining their dentition after age 65 have at least one RC lesion (205,216,217), clustering has been observed so that only a third of the older adults account for the majority of RC cases (218–220); the latter observation suggests the possible contribution of yet unknown genetic factors (90). Specifically focusing on patients with periodontitis, the intense protein-degrading activity found at RC-affected and periodontally involved sites may suggest the possibility of a special role for proteindegrading and protein-coagulating bacterial strains in the onset and progression of RC (56). This putative pathogenic mechanism deserves further investigation, with special emphasis on the elderly. Other special issues of RC in the aging patient should be considered as well. RC diagnosis in elderly people may be complicated by the necessity to perform examinations under nonideal clinical settings (221) and the reduced ability to maintain a good standard of oral hygiene, resulting in greater plaque deposits on the root surfaces (222). Such diagnostic difficulties lessen the reliability of the reported epidemiological data in the age-specific
Root caries: a periodontal perspective populations and, more importantly, may result in inadequate patient care. As regards prevention, a good standard of oral hygiene may be a challenge for the elderly, because of physical and mental disabilities. Changes in dietary habits and gravitation towards softer foods rich in simple sugars – typical of the elderly population – may complicate further prevention efforts. Therefore, elderly patients need to receive adequate motivation and support for the necessary changes in diet, with particular emphasis on the frequency of fermentable carbohydrate ingestion and the possible replacement with noncariogenic sweeteners (161). Moreover, instructions to maintain the best possible plaque control using electric or manual toothbrush, floss, interdental brush and adjuvants such as chlorhexidine and fluoride mouthwashes, and fluoride or anti-plaque dentifrices (223) should be provided, especially in elderly patients with a history of periodontal involvement. Unfortunately, other age-specific socio-demographic characteristics, such as institutionalization, lower socio-economic status and age-related cognitive decline, may severely impair effective patient communication or essentially curtail the patient’s ability to comply with periodontal maintenance. In conclusion, advanced age, periodontitis and RC are a triad of conditions frequently interrelated. The recent epidemiological data indicating that moderate or severe periodontitis affects 64% of adults aged 65 years in the United States (224) underscores the relevance of periodontal disease for the older adult. Therefore, future studies on RC in periodontally involved elderly populations are needed to better understand epidemiologic, diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic aspects predominantly or uniquely relevant to this patient subgroup.
cations of the interrelationship between these two clinical entities have not been routinely considered in the course of RC investigations. Despite the fact that GR and, in general, periodontal attachment loss are biological factors essential for RC onset and progression, often these variables are not investigated in the proposed risk models (78). The inclusion of these parameters in future investigations should help determine further the significance of the periodontal component in RC pathophysiology. Despite the recognition of the significance of RC prevention protocols as integral parts of a periodontal maintenance program (80,225), it appears that RC prevention is commonly not given due weight and importance during periodontal supportive therapy (226). Given that high patient compliance with periodontal maintenance has been shown to result in protection from further attachment loss and the onset of new RC (227), a fact that underscores again the interrelationship between the two conditions, it is evident that periodontists, hygienists or other oral healthcare providers responsible for periodontal maintenance, can play a key role in RC prevention. Specifically emerging from this review, future research should assess provider awareness about the impact of RC as a risk factor for further tooth loss in periodontally compromised patients of advanced age, with the inevitable consequences of edentulism and reduced quality of life. Clinical studies regarding the effect of specific RC prevention protocols – possibly based on targeted check-ups, dietary advice, improved oral hygiene techniques supplemented by topical fluoride therapy – long-term results of periodontal maintenance care and rate of tooth loss would help improve the oral care of older patients and should help increase awareness of the significance of RC in this growing segment of the population.
Root caries and periodontal disease: need for greater awareness
Conclusions
Although the evidence linking periodontal disease to RC development is well established, it appears that impli-
This review highlighted the need for careful consideration of the potential role of RC in compromising the
15
long-term survival of the dentition of periodontal patients. RC appears to be an underestimated clinical problem, despite its high prevalence and contribution to tooth loss in this patient population. The exposure of root surfaces to the oral environment due to aging, i.e. progressive GR, makes them prone to carious involvement. The risk of RC in patients with a history of periodontitis and resective surgery, especially in multirooted teeth, is of particular concern. Therefore, general preventive measures such as noncariogenic diet and fluoride application together with plaque control, must be regarded as mandatory components of any periodontal maintenance program. Careful assessment of each individual case is needed to outline a patient-centered comprehensive preventive and therapeutic approach for RC lesions. The high prevalence of periodontitis in older adults, increasing life expectancy and decreasing edentulism of the population, and apparent coexistence of RC with advanced age and periodontitis, collectively suggest that RC could become an increasingly frequent challenge for periodontal care providers. From this standpoint, future studies are needed to address special diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic measures to best meet the needs of the elderly periodontal patient.
Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge Dr Luca Landi and Dr Takuichi Sato for the scientific material provided.
References 1. American Academy of Periodontology. Glossary of Periodontal Terms, 4th edition. Chicago, IL: American Academy of Periodontology, 2001: 44. 2. L€ oe H, Anerud A, Boysen H. The natural history of periodontal disease in man: prevalence, severity, and extent of gingival recession. J Periodontol 1992;63:489–495. 3. Sumney DL, Jordan HV, Englander HR. The prevalence of root surface caries in selected populations. J Periodontol 1973;44:500–504.
16
Bignozzi et al.
4. Hazen SP, Chilton NW, Mumma RD Jr. The problem of root caries. I. Literature review and clinical description. J Am Dent Assoc 1973;86:137–144. 5. Banting DW, Ellen RP, Fillery ED. Prevalence of root surface caries among institutionalized older persons. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1980;8:84–88. 6. Katz RV, Hazen SP, Chilton NW, Mumma RD Jr. Prevalence and intraoral distribution of root caries in an adult population. Caries Res 1982;16:265–271. 7. Vehkalahti M, Rajala M, Tuominen R, Paunio I. Prevalence of root caries in the adult Finnish population. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1983;11: 188–190. 8. Stamm JW, Banting DW, Imrey PB. Adult root caries survey of two similar communities with contrasting natural water fluoride levels. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:143–149. 9. Banting DW, Ellen RP, Fillery ED. Clinical science. A longitudinal study of root caries: baseline and incidence data. J Dent Res 1985;64:1141–1144. 10. Ravald N, Hamp SE, Birkhed D. Longterm evaluation of root surface caries in periodontally treated patients. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13:758–767. 11. Heegaard KM, Holm-Pedersen P, Bardow A, Hvidtfeldt UA, Grønbaek M, Avlund K. The Copenhagen Oral Health Senior Cohort: design, population and dental health. Gerodontology 2011;28:165–176. 12. Imazato S, Ikebe K, Nokubi T, Ebisu S, Walls AW. Prevalence of root caries in a selected population of older adults in Japan. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:137–143. 13. Kularatne S, Ekanayake L. Root surface caries in older individuals from Sri Lanka. Caries Res 2007;41:252–256. 14. Sch€ upbach P, Guggenheim B, Lutz F. Human root caries: histopathology of advanced lesions. Caries Res 1990;24: 145–158. 15. Katz RV. Assessing root caries in populations: the evolution of the root caries index. J Public Health Dent 1980;40: 7–16. 16. Beck JD, Hunt RJ, Hand JS, Field HM. Prevalence of root and coronal caries in a noninstitutionalized older population. J Am Dent Assoc 1985;111:964–967. 17. Nyvad B, Fejerskov O. Root surface caries: clinical, histopathological and microbiological features and clinical implications. Int Dent J 1982;32: 311–326. 18. Schaeken MJ, Keltjens HM, Van Der Hoeven JS. Effects of fluoride and chlorhexidine on the microflora of dental root surfaces and progression of root-surface caries. J Dent Res 1991;70:150–153.
19. Eliasson S, Krasse B, S€ oremark R. Root caries. A consensus conference statement. Swed Dent J 1992;16:21–25. 20. Hix JO, O’Leary TJ. The relationship between cemental caries, oral hygiene status and fermentable carbohydrate intake. J Periodontol 1976;47:398–404. 21. DePaola PF, Soparkar PM, Kent RL Jr. Methodological issues relative to the quantification of root surface caries. Gerodontology 1989;8:3–8. 22. Lawrence HP, Hunt RJ, Beck JD, Davies GM. Five-year incidence rates and intraoral distribution of root caries among community-dwelling older adults. Caries Res 1996;30:169–179. 23. Ekstrand K, Martignon S, Holm-Pedersen P. Development and evaluation of two root caries controlling programmes for home-based frail people older than 75 years. Gerodontology 2008;25:67–75. 24. Hellyer PH, Beighton D, Heath MR, Lynch EJ. Root caries in older people attending a general dental practice in East Sussex. Br Dent J 1990;169: 201–206. 25. Katz RV. The clinical identification of root caries. Gerodontology 1986;5:21–24. 26. Rosen B, Birkhed D, Nilsson K, Olavi G, Egelberg J. Reproducibility of clinical caries diagnoses on coronal and root surfaces. Caries Res 1996;30:1–7. 27. Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Schinkel H-J. Progression und Stagnation der Wurzelkaries. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1992;47:774–777. 28. Banting DW. The diagnosis of root caries. J Dent Educ 2001;65:991–996. 29. Ismail AI, Sohn W, Tellez M et al. The International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS): an integrated system for measuring dental caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007;35:170–178. 30. Diniz MB, Rodrigues JA, Hug I. Cordeiro Rde C, Lussi A. Reproducibility and accuracy of the ICDAS-II for occlusal caries detection. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2009;37:399–404. 31. Shoaib L, Deery C, Ricketts DN, Nugent ZJ. Validity and reproducibility of ICDAS II in primary teeth. Caries Res 2009;43:442–448. 32. International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) Coordinating Committee. Rationale and Evidence for the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS II). 2012; 1–43. Available at: http://www.icdas.org/uploads/Rationale %20and%20Evidence%20ICDAS%20II %20September%2011-1.pdf. (accessed on 10 December 2012). 33. Lynch E, Beighton D. A comparison of primary root caries lesions classified according to colour. Caries Res 1994;28:233–239.
34. Wittneben JG, Z€ ollner A, Wright AF, Weber HP. Comparison of visualtactile, radiographic, and histologic diagnoses of subgingival crown margin caries – an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:561–565. 35. Karlsson L, Johansson E, Tranaeus S. Validity and reliability of laser-induced fluorescence measurements on carious root surfaces in vitro. Caries Res 2009;43:397–404. 36. Wicht MJ, Haak R, St€ utzer H, Strohe D, Noack MJ. Intra- and interexaminer variability and validity of laser fluorescence and electrical resistance readings on root surface lesions. Caries Res 2002;36:241–248. 37. Amaechi BT, Podoleanu AG, Komarov G, Higham SM, Jackson DA. Quantification of root caries using optical coherence tomography and microradiography: a correlational study. Oral Health Prev Dent 2004;2:377–382. 38. Clarkson BH, Krell D, Wefel JS, Crall J, Feagin FF. In vitro caries-like lesion production by Streptococcus mutans and Actinomyces viscosus using sucrose and starch. J Dent Res 1987;66:795–798. 39. Shen S, Samaranayake LP, Yip HK. In vitro growth, acidogenicity and cariogenicity of predominant human root caries flora. J Dent 2004;32:667–678. 40. Shen S, Samaranayake LP, Yip HK. Coaggregation profiles of the microflora from root surface caries lesions. Arch Oral Biol 2005;50:23–32. 41. Fure S. Ten-year cross-sectional and incidence study of coronal and root caries and some related factors in elderly Swedish individuals. Gerodontology 2004; 21:130–140. 42. Powell LV, Leroux BG, Persson RE, Kiyak HA. Factors associated with caries incidence in an elderly population. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1998; 26:170–176. 43. Scheinin A, Pienih€ akkinen K, Tiekso J, Holmberg S, Fukuda M, Suzuki A. Multifactorial modeling for root caries prediction: 3-year follow-up results. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1994;22:126–129. 44. Preza D, Olsen I, Willumsen T et al. Microarray analysis of the microflora of root caries in elderly. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;28:509–517. 45. Paster BJ, Boches SK, Galvin JL et al. Bacterial diversity in human subgingival plaque. J Bacteriol 2001;183:3770–3783. 46. Paster BJ, Olsen I, Aas JA, Dewhirst FE. The breadth of bacterial diversity in the human periodontal pocket and other oral sites. Periodontol 2000;2006; 80–87. 47. Aas JA, Paster BJ, Stokes LN, Olsen I, Dewhirst FE. Defining the normal
Root caries: a periodontal perspective
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
bacterial flora of the oral cavity. J Clin Microbiol 2005;43:5721–5732. Melberg JR. Demineralization and remineralization of root surface caries. Gerodontology 1986;5:25–31. Feng L, Gao X. The dynamics of pH, free calcium and total proteins in root plaque fluid and their relationships to the cariogenic potential. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2000;35: 132–134. Kawasaki K, Featherstone JD. Effects of collagenase on root demineralization. J Dent Res 1997;76:588–595. Kleter GA, Damen JJ, Everts V, Niehof J, Ten Cate JM. The influence of the organic matrix on demineralization of bovine root dentin in vitro. J Dent Res 1994;73:1523–1529. Komiyama K, Khandelwal RL, Heinrich SE. Glycogen synthetic and degradative activities by Actinomyces viscosus and Actinomyces naeslundii of root surface caries and noncaries sites. Caries Res 1988;22:217–225. Komiyama K. Khandelwal RL Acid production by Actinomyces viscosus of root surface caries and non-caries origin during glycogen synthesis and degradation at different pH levels. J Oral Pathol Med 1992;21:343–347. Silwood CJ, Lynch EJ, Seddon S, Sheerin A, Claxson AW. Grootveld MC1H-NMR analysis of microbialderived organic acids in primary root carious lesions and saliva. NMR Biomed 1999;12:345–356. Brailsford SR, Shah B, Simons D et al. The predominant aciduric microflora of root-caries lesions. J Dent Res 2001;80:1828–1833. Hashimoto K, Sato T, Shimauchi H, Takahashi N. Profiling of dental plaque microflora on root caries lesions and the protein-denaturing activity of these bacteria. Am J Dent 2011;24:295–299. Eley BM, Cox SW. Proteolytic and hydrolytic enzymes from putative periodontal pathogens: characterization, molecular genetics, effects on host defenses and tissues and detection in gingival crevice fluid. Periodontol 2000; 2003;105–124. Sch€ upbach P, Guggenheim B, Lutz F. Human root caries: histopathology of initial lesions in cementum and dentin. J Oral Pathol Med 1989;18:146–156. Sch€ upbach P, Lutz F, Guggenheim B. Human root caries: histopathology of arrested lesions. Caries Res 1992;26: 153–164. Nyvad B, Fejerskov O. Active and Inactive Root Surface Caries: Structural Entities. Dentine Reactions in the Oral Cavity. Oxford: IRL Press; 1987. p. 165–180.
61. Sch€ upbach P, Guggenheim B, Lutz F. Histopathology of root surface caries. J Dent Res 1990;69:1195–1204. 62. Levine RS. The differential inorganic composition of dentine within active and arrested carious lesions. Caries Res 1973;7:245–260. 63. Parikh SR, Massler M, Bahn A. Microorganisms in active and arrested carious lesions. NY State Dent J 1963;29: 347–355. 64. Sarnat H, Massler M. Microstructure of active and arrested dentinal caries. J Dent Res 1965;44:1389–1401. 65. Young MA, Massler M. Some physical and chemical characteristics of carious dentine. Br Dent J 1963;115: 406–412. 66. Banting DW, Courtright PN. Distribution and natural history of carious lesions on the roots of teeth. J Can Dent Assoc 1975;41:45–49. 67. Arnold WH, Bietau V, Renner PO. Gaengler. Micromorphological and micronanalytical characterization of stagnating and progressing root caries lesions. Arch Oral Biol 2007;52:591–597. 68. Banting DW. Diagnosis and prediction of root caries. Adv Dent Res 1993;7: 80–86. 69. Takano N, Ando Y, Yoshihara A, Miyazaki H. Factors associated with root caries incidence in an elderly population. Community Dent Health 2003;20: 217–222. 70. Chalmers JM, Carter KD, Spencer AJ. Caries incidence and increments in Adelaide nursing home residents. Spec Care Dentist 2005;25:96–105. 71. Beck JD, Kohout FJ, Hunt RJ, Heckert DA. Root caries: physical, medical and psychosocial correlates in an elderly population. Gerodontics 1987;3:242–247. 72. Brown LJ, Winn DM, White BA. Dental caries, restoration and tooth conditions in U.S. adults, 1988–1991. Selected findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127:1315–1325. 73. Drake CW, Beck JD. Models for coronal caries and root fragments in an elderly population. Caries Res 1992;26: 402–407. 74. Lundgren M, Emilson CG, Osterberg T. Root caries and some related factors in 88-year-old carriers and non-carriers of Streptococcus sobrinus in saliva. Caries Res 1998;32:93–99. 75. Gilbert GH, Duncan RP, Dolan TA, Foerster U. Twenty-four month incidence of root caries among a diverse group of adults. Caries Res 2001;35: 366–375. 76. Luan W, Baelum V, Fejerskov O, Chen X. Ten-year incidence of dental caries
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
17
in adult and elderly Chinese. Caries Res 2000;34:205–213. Yoshihara A, Takano N, Hirotomi T, Ogawa H, Hanada N, Miyazaki H. Longitudinal relationship between root caries and serum albumin. J Dent Res 2007;86:1115–1119. Ritter AV, Shugars DA, Bader JD. Root caries risk indicators: a systematic review of risk models. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2010;38:383–397. Steele JG, Sheiham A, Marcenes W, Fay N, Walls AW. Clinical and behavioural risk indicators for root caries in older people. Gerodontology 2001;18:95–101. Ravald N, Birkhed D, Hamp SE. Root caries susceptibility in periodontally treated patients. Results after 12 years. J Clin Periodontol 1993;20:124–129. Locker D, Ford J, Leake JL. Incidence of and risk factors for tooth loss in a population of older Canadians. J Dent Res 1996;75:783–789. Hand JS, Hunt RJ, Beck JD. Coronal and root caries in older Iowans: 36month incidence. Gerodontics 1988;4: 136–139. Leske GS, Ripa LW. Three-year root caries increments: an analysis of teeth and surfaces at risk. Gerodontology 1989;8:17–21. Avlund K, Holm-Pedersen P, Morse DE, Viitanen M, Winblad B. The strength of two indicators of social position on oral health among persons over the age of 80 years. J Public Health Dent 2005;65:231–239. Avlund K, Holm-Pedersen P, Morse DE, Viitanen M, Winblad B. Social relations as determinants of oral health among persons over the age of 80 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003;31:454–462. Shah N, Sundaram KR. Impact of sociodemographic variables, oral hygiene practices, oral habits and diet on dental caries experience of Indian elderly: a community-based study. Gerodontology 2004;21:43–50. Preza D, Olsen I, Aas JA, Willumsen T, Grinde B, Paster BJ. Bacterial profiles of root caries in elderly patients. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:2015–2021. Ravald N, Birkhed D. Prediction of root caries in periodontally treated patients maintained with different fluoride programmes. Caries Res 1992;26: 450–458. Joshi A, Papas AS, Giunta J. Root caries incidence and associated risk factors in middle-aged and older adults. Gerodontology 1993;10:83–89. Gati D, Vieira AR. Elderly at greater risk for root caries: a look at the multifactorial risks with emphasis on genetics
18
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
Bignozzi et al. susceptibility. Int J Dent 2011;2011: 647168. Burt BA, Eklund SA, Morgan KJ et al. The effects of sugars intake and frequency of ingestion on dental caries increment in a three-year longitudinal study. J Dent Res 1988;67:1422–1429. Faine MP, Allender D, Baab D, Persson R, Lamont RJ. Dietary and salivary factors associated with root caries. Spec Care Dentist 1992;12:177–182. Avlund K, Holm-Pedersen P, Morse DE, Viitanen M, Winblad B. Tooth loss and caries prevalence in very old Swedish people: the relationship to cognitive function and functional ability. Gerodontology 2004;21:17–26. S anchez-Garcıa S, Reyes-Morales H, Ju arez-Cedillo T, Espinel-Berm udez C, Sol orzano-Santos F, Garcıa-Pe~ na C. A prediction model for root caries in an elderly population. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011;39:44–52. Lawrence HP, Hunt RJ, Beck JD. Three-year root caries incidence and risk modeling in older adults in North Carolina. J Public Health Dent 1995;55: 69–78. Krasse B, Fure S. Root surface caries: a problem for periodontally compromised patients. Periodontol 2000;1994;139–147. McDermott RE, Hoover JN, Komiyama K. Root surface caries prevalence and associated factors among adult patients in an acute care hospital. J Can Dent Assoc 1991;57:505–508. Beck J. The epidemiology of root surface caries. J Dent Res 1990;69: 1216–1221. Beck JD. The epidemiology of root surface caries: North American studies. Adv Dent Res 1993;7:42–51. Fadel H. Al Hamdan K, Rhbeini Y, Heijl L, Birkhed D. Root caries and risk profiles using the Cariogram in different periodontal disease severity groups. Acta Odontol Scand 2011;69: 118–124. Sugihara N, Maki Y, Okawa Y, Hosaka M, Matsukubo T, Takaesu Y. Factors associated with root surface caries in elderly. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 2010;51:23–30. Cortellini P, Pini Prato G. Coronally advanced flap and combination therapy for root coverage. Clinical strategies based on scientific evidence and clinical experience. Periodontol 2000 2012;59: 158–184. Serino G, Wennstr€ om JL, Lindhe J, Eneroth L. The prevalence and distribution of gingival recession in subjects with a high standard of oral hygiene. J Clin Periodontol 1994;21:57–63. Baelum V, Fejerskov O, Karring T. Oral hygiene, gingivitis and periodontal
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120. 121.
breakdown in adult Tanzanians. J Periodontal Res 1986;21:221–232. Yoneyama T, Okamoto H, Lindhe J, Socransky SS, Haffajee AD. Probing depth, attachment loss and gingival recession. Findings from a clinical examination in Ushiku, Japan. J Clin Periodontol 1988;15:581–591. Miller PD Jr. A classification of marginal tissue recession. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1985;5:8–13. Sangnes G, Gjermo P. Prevalence of oral soft and hard tissue lesions related to mechanical tooth cleansing procedures. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1976;4:77–83. Khocht A, Simon G, Person P, Denepitiya JL. Gingival recession in relation to history of hard toothbrush use. J Periodontol 1993;64:900–905. Litonjua LA, Andreana S, Bush PJ, Cohen RE. Toothbrushing and gingival recession. Int Dent J 2003;53:67–72. Joss-Vassalli I, Grebenstein C, Topouzelis N, Sculean A, Katsaros C. Orthodontic therapy and gingival recession: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2010;13:127–141. K€allest al C, Uhlin S. Buccal attachment loss in Swedish adolescents. J Clin Periodontol 1992;19:485–491. L€ ost C. Depth of alveolar bone dehiscences in relation to gingival recessions. J Clin Periodontol 1984;11: 583–589. Younes SA, El Angbawi MF. Gingival recession in the mandibular central incisor region of Saudi schoolchildren aged 10–15 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1983;11:246–249. K€allest al C, Matsson L. Periodontal conditions in a group of Swedish adolescents. (II). Analysis of data. J Clin Periodontol 1990;17:609–612. Aroca S, Keglevich T, Nikolidakis D et al. Treatment of class III multiple gingival recessions: a randomized-clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2010;37:88–97. Chabanski MB, Gillam DG. Aetiology, prevalence and clinical features of cervical dentine sensitivity. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:15–19. Greene PR. The flexible gingival mask: an aesthetic solution in periodontal practice. Br Dent J 1998;184:536–540. Bergstr€ om J, Lavstedt S. An epidemiologic approach to toothbrushing and dental abrasion. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1979;7:57–64. Tugnait A, Clerehugh V. Gingival recession-its significance and management. J Dent 2001;29:381–394. Galan D, Lynch E. Epidemiology of root caries. Gerodontology 1993;10:59–71. Cobb CM. Clinical significance of nonsurgical periodontal therapy: an evi-
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
dence-based perspective of scaling and root planing. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29 (Suppl 2):6–16. Hughes TP, Caffesse RG. Gingival changes following scaling, root planning and oral hygiene. A biometric evaluation. J Periodontol 1978;49:245–252. Proye MP, Polson AM. Effect of root surface alterations on periodontal healing. I. Surgical denudation. J Clin Periodontol 1982;9:428–440. Adriaens PA, Adriaens LM. Effects of nonsurgical periodontal therapy on hard and soft tissues. Periodontol 2000;2004;121–145. Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J. Effect of non-surgical periodontal therapy. VI. Localization of sites with probing attachment loss. J Clin Periodontol 1985;12:351–359. Claffey N, Shanley D. Relationship of gingival thickness and bleeding to loss of probing attachment in shallow sites following nonsurgical periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13: 654–657. Krasse B, Edwardsson S, Svensson I, Trell L. Implantation of caries-inducing streptococci in the human oral cavity. Arch Oral Biol 1967;12:231–236. Ravald N, Hamp SE. Prediction of root surface caries in patients treated for advanced periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol 1981;8:400–414. Ravald N, Johansson CS. Tooth loss in periodontally treated patients: a longterm study of periodontal disease and root caries. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39: 73–79. Slots J. Selection of antimicrobial agents in periodontal therapy. J Periodontal Res 2002;37:389–398. Salvi GE, Lang NP. Host response modulation in the management of periodontal diseases. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:108–129. Bhatavadekar NB, Williams RC. New directions in host modulation for the management of periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36:124–126. Zandbergen D, Slot DE, Cobb CM, Van der Weijden FA. The clinical effect of scaling and root planing and the concomitant administration of systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole: a systematic review. J Periodontol 2013; 84:332–351. van Steenberghe D, Rosling B, S€ oder PO et al. A 15-month evaluation of the effects of repeated subgingival minocycline in chronic adult periodontitis. J Periodontol 1999;70:657–667. Rodrigues RM, Goncßalves C, Souto R, Feres-Filho EJ, Uzeda M, Colombo AP. Antibiotic resistance profile of the subgingival microbiota following
Root caries: a periodontal perspective
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
systemic or local tetracycline therapy. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:420–427. Mombelli A, Brochut P, Plagnat D, Casagni F, Giannopoulou C. Enamel matrix proteins and systemic antibiotics as adjuncts to non-surgical periodontal treatment: clinical effects. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:225–230. Gapski R, Hasturk H, Van Dyke TE et al. Systemic MMP inhibition for periodontal wound repair: results of a multicentre randomized-controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36:149–156. Kaldahl WB, Kalkwarf KL, Patil KD, Dyer JK, Bates RE Jr. Evaluation of four modalities of periodontal therapy. Mean probing depth, probing attachment level and recession changes. J Periodontol 1988;59:783–793. Kaldahl WB, Kalkwarf KL, Patil KD, Molvar MP, Dyer JK. Long-term evaluation of periodontal therapy: I. Response to 4 therapeutic modalities. J Periodontol 1996;67:93–102. Lindhe J, Nyman S. The effect of plaque control and surgical pocket elimination on the establishment and maintenance of periodontal health. A longitudinal study of periodontal therapy in cases of advanced disease. J Clin Periodontol 1975;2:67–79. Westfelt E, Nyman S, Socransky S, Lindhe J. Significance of frequency of professional tooth cleaning for healing following periodontal surgery. J Clin Periodontol 1983;10:148–156. Philpotts CJ, Weader E, Joiner A. The measurement in vitro of enamel and dentine wear by toothpastes of different abrasivity. Int Dent J 2005; 55:183–187. Wang X, Lussi A. Assessment and management of dental erosion. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54:565–578. Reyes E, Hildebolt C, Langenwalter E, Miley D. Abfractions and attachment loss in teeth with premature contacts in centric relation: clinical observations. J Periodontol 2009;80:1955–1962. Harpenau LA, Noble WH, Kao RT. Diagnosis and management of dental wear. J Calif Dent Assoc 2011;39: 225–231. Addy M. Tooth brushing, tooth wear and dentine hypersensitivity – are they associated? Int Dent J 2005;55:261–267. Reiker J, van der Velden U, Barendregt DS, Loos BG. A cross-sectional study into the prevalence of root caries in periodontal maintenance patients. J Clin Periodontol 1999;26:26–32. Imfeld T. Dental erosion. Definition, classification and links. Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104:151–155. K€ uhnisch J, Galler M, Seitz M et al. Irregularities below the enamel-dentin
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
junction may predispose for fissure caries. J Dent Res 2012;91:1066–1670. Lussi A, Schlueter N, Rakhmatullina E, Ganss C. Dental erosion–an overview with emphasis on chemical and histopathological aspects. Caries Res 2011;45 (Suppl 1):2–12. Rios D, Hon orio HM, Magalh~ aes AC et al. Influence of toothbrushing on enamel softening and abrasive wear of eroded bovine enamel: an in situ study. Braz Oral Res 2006;20:148–154. Magalh~ aes AC, Rios D, Moino AL, Wiegand A, Attin T, Buzalaf MA. Effect of different concentrations of fluoride in dentifrices on dentin erosion subjected or not to abrasion in situ/ex vivo. Caries Res 2008;42:112–116. Attin T, Siegel S, Buchalla W, Lennon AM, Hannig C, Becker K. Brushing abrasion of softened and remineralised dentin: an in situ study. Caries Res 2004;38:62–66. Chalmers JM. Minimal intervention dentistry: part 2. Strategies for addressing restorative challenges in older patients. J Can Dent Assoc 2006;72: 435–440. Rodrigues JA, Lussi A, Seemann R, Neuhaus KW. Prevention of crown and root caries in adults. Periodontol 2000;2011;231–249. Zimmer S, Jahn KR, Barthel CR. Recommendations for the use of fluoride in caries prevention. Oral Health Prev Dent 2003;1:45–51. Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Evidence for sugar addiction: behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2008;32:20–39. Burt BA. The use of sorbitol- and xylitol-sweetened chewing gum in caries control. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:190–196. Scheinin A, Makinen KK, Ylitalo K. Turku sugar studies V. Final report on the effect of sucrose, frutose and xylitol diets on the caries incidence in man. Acta Odontol Scand 1976;34:179–198. Machiulskiene V, Nyvad B, Baelum V. Caries preventive effect of sugar-substituted chewing gum. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:278–288. M€akinen KK, Pemberton D, Cole J, M€akinen PL, Chen CY, Lambert P. Saliva stimulants and the oral health of geriatric patients. Adv Dent Res 1995;9:125–126. Walls AW, Meurman JH. Approaches to caries prevention and therapy in the elderly. Adv Dent Res 2012;24:36–40. Baysan A, Lynch E, Ellwood R, Davies R, Petersson L, Borsboom P. Reversal of primary root caries using dentifrices containing 5,000 and 1,100 ppm fluoride. Caries Res 2001;35:41–46.
19
164. Petersson LG. The role of fluoride in the preventive management of dentin hypersensitivity and root caries. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17 (Suppl 1):S63–71. 165. Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM, Huntley V. Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. J Dent Res 2007;86:410–415. 166. Reynolds EC. Calcium phosphate-based remineralization systems: scientific evidence? Aust Dent J 2008;53:268–273. 167. Papas A, Russell D, Singh M, Kent R, Triol C, Winston A. Caries clinical trial of a remineralising toothpaste in radiation patients. Gerodontology 2008;25: 76–88. 168. Pavan S, Xie Q, Hara AT, Bedran-Russo AK. Biomimetic approach for root caries prevention using a proanthocyanidin-rich agent. Caries Res 2011;45: 443–447. 169. Xie Q, Bedran-Russo AK, Wu CD. In vitro remineralization effects of grape seed extract on artificial root caries. J Dent 2008;36:900–906. 170. Nyvad B, Fejerskov O. Active root surface caries converted into inactive caries as a response to oral hygiene. Scand J Dent Res 1986;94:281–284. 171. Axelsson P, Nystr€ om B, Lindhe J. The long-term effect of a plaque control program on tooth mortality, caries and periodontal disease in adults. Results after 30 years of maintenance. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:749–757. 172. Schaeken MJ, van der Hoeven JS, Hendriks JC. Effects of varnishes containing chlorhexidine on the human dental plaque flora. J Dent Res 1989;68:1786–1789. 173. Autio-Gold J. The role of chlorhexidine in caries prevention. Oper Dent 2008;33:710–716. 174. L opez-Jornet MP, Garcıa-Teresa G, Vi~ nas M, Vinuesa T. Clinical and antimicrobial evaluation of a mouthwash and toothpaste for xerostomia: a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. J Dent 2011;39:757–763. 175. Wolff A, Fox PC, Porter S, Konttinen YT. Established and novel approaches for the management of hyposalivation and xerostomia. Curr Pharm Des 2012;18:5515–5521. 176. Fourel J. Gingival reattachment on carious tooth surfaces. A 4-year follow-up. J Clin Periodontol 1982;9:285–289. 177. Camargo PM, Lagos RA, Lekovic V, Wolinsky LE. Soft tissue root coverage as treatment for cervical abrasion and caries. Gen Dent 2001;49:299–304. 178. Goldstein M, Nasatzky E, Goultschin J, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. Coverage of previously carious roots is as predictable a procedure as coverage of intact roots. J Periodontol 2002;73:1419–1426.
20
Bignozzi et al.
179. Tenenbaum H, Klewansky P, Roth JJ. Clinical evaluation of gingival recession treated by coronally repositioned flap technique. J Periodontol 1980;51:686–690. 180. Tatakis DN, Trombelli L. Gingival recession treatment: guided tissue regeneration with bioabsorbable membrane versus connective tissue graft. J Periodontol 2000;71:299–307. 181. Harris RJ. A comparative study of root coverage obtained with an acellular dermal matrix versus a connective tissue graft: results of 107 recession defects in 50 consecutively treated patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000; 20:51–59. 182. McGuire MK, Nunn M. Evaluation of human recession defects treated with coronally advanced flaps and either enamel matrix derivative or connective tissue. Part 1: comparison of clinical parameters. J Periodontol 2003;74: 1110–1125. 183. da Silva RC, Joly JC, de Lima AF, Tatakis DN. Root coverage using the coronally positioned flap with or without a subepithelial connective tissue graft. J Periodontol 2004;75:413–419. 184. Clauser C, Nieri M, Franceschi D, Pagliaro U, Pini-Prato G. Evidencebased mucogingival therapy. Part 2: ordinary and individual patient data meta-analyses of surgical treatment of recession using complete root coverage as the outcome variable. J Periodontol 2003;74:741–756. 185. Cairo F, Pagliaro U, Nieri M. Treatment of gingival recession with coronally advanced flap procedures: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:136–162. 186. Chambrone L, Sukekava F, Ara ujo MG, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA, Lima LA. Root-coverage procedures for the treatment of localized recession-type defects: a Cochrane systematic review. J Periodontol 2010;81:452–478. 187. Burgess JO, Gallo JR. Treating rootsurface caries. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46:385–404. 188. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Resin bonding to cervical sclerotic dentin: a review. J Dent 2004;32:173–196. 189. Lee WC, Eakle WS. Stress-induced cervical lesions: review of advances in the past 10 years. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75: 487–494. 190. Allegri MA, Landi L, Zucchelli G. II restauro conservativo dell’area cervicale: protocolli operativi e rapporti con il parodonto. II Dentista Moderno 2009;11:38–64. 191. Ingber JS, Rose LF, Coslet JG. The “biologic width” – a concept in periodontics and restorative dentistry. Alpha Omegan 1977;70:62–65.
192. Pama-Benfenati S, Fugazzotto PA, Ferreira PM, Ruben MP, Kramer GM. The effect of restorative margins on the postsurgical development and nature of the periodontium. Part II. Anatomical considerations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1986;6:64–75. 193. Tal H, Soldinger M, Dreiangel A, Pitaru S. Periodontal response to longterm abuse of the gingival attachment by supracrestal amalgam restorations. J Clin Periodontol 1989;16:654–659. 194. G€ unay H, Seeger A, Tschernitschek H, Geurtsen W. Placement of the preparation line and periodontal health – a prospective 2-year clinical study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20:171–181. 195. Padbury A Jr, Eber R, Wang HL. Interactions between the gingiva and the margin of restorations. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30:379–385. 196. Huynh-Ba G, Kuonen P, Hofer D, Schmid J, Lang NP, Salvi GE. The effect of periodontal therapy on the survival rate and incidence of complications of multirooted teeth with furcation involvement after an observation period of at least 5 years: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36:164–176. 197. Carnevale G, Pontoriero R, di Febo G. Long-term effects of root-resective therapy in furcation-involved molars. A 10-year longitudinal study. J Clin Periodontol 1998;25:209–214. 198. Preston AJ. Dental management of the elderly patient. Dent Update 2012;39:141–143. 199. Scott J, Bodner L, Baum BJ. Assessment of age-related changes in the submandibular and sublingual salivary glands of the rat using stereological analysis. Arch Oral Biol 1986;31:69–71. 200. Scott J. Quantitative age changes in the histological structure of human submandibular salivary glands. Arch Oral Biol 1977;22:221–227. 201. Gr€ otz KA, Genitsariotis S, Vehling D, Al-Nawas B. Long-term oral Candida colonization, mucositis and salivary function after head and neck radiotherapy. Support Care Cancer 2003;11:717– 721. 202. Momm F, Volegova-Neher NJ. SchulteM€ onting, Guttenberger R. Different saliva substitutes for treatment of xerostomia following radiotherapy. A prospective crossover study. Strahlenther Onkol 2005;181:231–236. 203. Winn DM, Brunelle JA, Selwitz RH et al. Coronal and root caries in the dentition of adults in the United States, 1988–1991. J Dent Res 1996;75:642–651. 204. Okawa Y, Sugihara N, Maki Y, Ikeda Y, Takaesu Y. Prevalence of root caries in a Japanese adult population aged 20–
205.
206.
207.
208.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
59 years. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 1993;34:107–113. Saunders RH Jr, Meyerowitz C. Dental caries in older adults. Dent Clin North Am 2005;49:293–308. G€ okalp S, Do gan BG. Root caries in 35–44 and 65–74 year-olds in Turkey. Community Dent Health 2012;29: 233–238. Rihs LB, de Sousa Mda L, Wada RS. Root caries in areas with and without fluoridated water at the Southeast region of S~ ao Paulo State, Brazil. J Appl Oral Sci 2008;16:70–74. Matthews DC, Clovis JB, Brillant MG et al. Oral health status of long-term care residents-a vulnerable population. J Can Dent Assoc 2012;78:c3. Ferro R, Besostri A, Strohmenger L et al. Oral health problems and needs in nursing home residents in Northern Italy. Community Dent Health 2008;25: 231–236. Islas-Granillo H, Borges-Ya~ nez SA, Medina-Solıs CE et al. Socioeconomic, sociodemographic, and clinical variables associated with root caries in a group of persons age 60 years and older in Mexico. Geriatr Gerontol 2012;12: 271–276. Wennstr€ om JL. Treatment of periodontal disease in older adults. Periodontol 2000;1998;106–112. Langer B, Stein SD, Wagenberg B. An evaluation of root resections. A tenyear study. J Periodontol 1981;52:719– 722. Zafiropoulos GG, Hoffmann O, Kasaj A, Willershausen B, Deli G, Tatakis DN. Mandibular molar root resection versus implant therapy: a retrospective nonrandomized study. J Oral Implantol 2009;35:52–62. Zaremba ML, Stokowska W, Klimiuk A et al. Microorganisms in root carious lesions in adults. Adv Med Sci 2006;51 (Suppl 1):237–240. Preza D, Olsen I, Willumsen T, Grinde B, Paster BJ. Diversity and site-specificity of the oral microflora in the elderly. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;28:1033–1040. Ingle NA, Chaly PE, Zohara CK. Oral health related quality of life in adult population attending the outpatient department of a hospital in Chennai, India. J Int Oral Health 2010;2:45–55. Slavkin HC. Maturity and oral health: live longer and better. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:805–808. H€ ansel Petersson G, Fure S, Bratthall D. Evaluation of a computer-based caries risk assessment program in an elderly group of individuals. Acta Odontol Scand 2003;61:164–171.
Root caries: a periodontal perspective 219. Anusavice KJ. Dental caries: risk assessment and treatment solutions for an elderly population. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2002;23(10 Suppl):12–20. 220. Griffin SO, Griffin PM, Swann JL, Zlobin N. Estimating rates of new root caries in older adults. J Dent Res 2004;83:634–638. 221. Fairhall TJ, Thomson WM, Kieser JA, Broughton JR, Cullinan MP, Seymour GJ. Home or away? Differences between home- and clinic-based dental examinations for older people. Gerodontology 2009;26:179–186. 222. Mojon P, Favre P, Chung JP, BudtzJ€ orgensen E. Examiner agreement on caries detection and plaque accumulation during dental surveys of elders. Gerodontology 1995;12:49–55.
223. Bizhang M, Chun YH, Heisrath D et al. Microbiota of exposed root surfaces after fluoride, chlorhexidine, and periodontal maintenance therapy: a 3-year evaluation. J Periodontol 2007;78:1580–1589. 224. Eke PI, Dye BA, Wei L, ThorntonEvans GO, Genco RJ. Prevalence of periodontitis in adults in the United States: 2009 and 2010. J Dent Res 2012;91:914–920. 225. Paine ML, Slots J, Rich SK. Fluoride use in periodontal therapy: a review of the literature. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:69–77. 226. Renvert S, Persson GR. Supportive periodontal therapy. Periodontol 2000;2004;179–195. 227. Pepelassi E, Tsami A, Komboli M. Root caries in periodontally treated
21
patients in relation to their compliance with suggested periodontal maintenance intervals. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2005;26:835–844. 228. Kitamura M, Kiyak HA, Mulligan K. Predictors of root caries in the elderly. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1986; 14:34–38. 229. Chalmers JM, Carter KD, Spencer AJ. Caries incidence and increments in community-living older adults with and without dementia. Gerodontology 2002; 19:80–94. 230. Powell LV, Mancl LA, Senft GD. Exploration of prediction models for caries risk assessment of the geriatric population. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1991;19:291–295.