Minimal Intervention Dentistry Procedures: a Ten Year Retrospective Study

Minimal Intervention Dentistry (MID) is an effective treatment approach with increasing acceptance among dental professionals. Objective – This study aimed to evaluate the MID impact on Dentistry by analyzing procedures performed on patients treated at a Pediatric Dentistry Graduate Program clinic which implemented MID. Study design – The number of procedures including sealants, modified atraumatic restorative treatment (mART), resin crowns, direct pulp capping, pulpotomy, pulpectomy, and deciduous/ permanent extractions from 333 pediatric patients treated between the years 2001 to 2003 and 2008 to 2010 in Distrito Federal, Brazil were analyzed. Statistical analysis involved chi-square and G Williams tests. Results – 783 procedures were analyzed and demonstrated that there was a significant reduction of sealant placement in the last triennium when compared to the first one (p<0.0001). Moreover, there was a significant increase in the amount of mART (p<0.0001). This increase in mART procedures resulted in a significant reduction in procedures with pulp involvement: direct pulp capping (p=0.0014), pulpotomy (p=0.0014) and pulpectomy (p=0.0002). Conclusions – Based on the results, MID represented a positive impact on the intervention on caries lesions in patients, mainly reflected by the significant reduction in the number of direct pulp capping, pulpotomy and pulpectomy.

Minimal Intervention Dentistry; Atraumatic Restrorative Treatment; Pulp Therapy

1. Roncalli AG. National oral health survey in 2010 shows a major decrease in dental caries in Brazil. Cad Saude Publica 27: 4-5, 2011.

2. Roncalli AG, Silva NN, Nascimento AC, et al. Relevant methodological issues from the SBBrasil 2010 Project for national health surveys. Cad Saude Publica 28: s40-57, 2012.

3. Mount GJ. A new paradigm for operative dentistry. Aust Dent J 52: 264-270; quiz 342, 2007.

4. Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, et al. Minimal intervention dentistry--a review. FDI Commission Project 1-97. Int Dent J 50: 1-12, 2000.

5. Wolff MS, Allen K & Kaim J. A 100-year journey from GV Black to minimal surgical intervention. Compend Contin Educ Dent 28: 130-134; quiz 135, 152, 2007.

6. Bjorndal L. The caries process and its effect on the pulp: the science is changing and so is our understanding. Pediatr Dent 30: 192-196, 2008.

7. Topaloglu-Ak A, Eden E & Frencken JE. Managing dental caries in children in Turkey--a discussion paper. BMC Oral Health 9: 32, 2009.

8. Kikwilu EN, Frencken J & Mulder J. Impact of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) on the treatment profile in pilot government dental clinics in Tanzania. BMC Oral Health 9: 14, 2009.

9. Keyes PH. The infectious and transmissible nature of experimental dental caries. Findings and implications. Arch Oral Biol 1: 304-320, 1960.

10. Burke FJ. From extension for prevention to prevention of extension: (minimal intervention dentistry). Dent Update 30: 492-498, 500, 502, 2003.

11. Frencken JE, Peters MC, Manton DJ, et al. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries - a review: report of a FDI task group. Int Dent J 62: 223-243, 2012.

12. Topaloglu-Ak A, Eden E, Frencken JE, et al. Two years survival rate of class II composite resin restorations prepared by ART with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel in primary molars. Clin Oral Investig 13: 325-332, 2009.

13. Massara MLA & Bönecker M. Modified ART: why not? Braz Oral Res 26: 187-189, 2012.

14. Kikwilu EN, Frencken JE, Mulder J, et al. Dental practitioners’ attitudes, subjective norms and intentions to practice atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) in Tanzania. J Appl Oral Sci 17: 97-102, 2009.

15. Frencken JE & Leal SC. The correct use of the ART approach. J Appl Oral Sci 18: 1-4, 2010.

16. Momoi Y, Hayashi M, Fujitani M, et al. Clinical guidelines for treating caries in adults following a minimal intervention policy--evidence and consensus based report. J Dent 40: 95-105, 2012.

17. World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, 1993.

18. Banerjee A. Minimal intervention dentistry: part 7. Minimally invasive operative caries management: rationale and techniques. Br Dent J 214: 107-111, 2013.

19. Pitts N. Preventive and minimal intervention dentistry in the undergraduate curriculum. J Dent 39 Suppl 2: S41-48, 2011.

20. Cardoso MV, Neves AA, Mine A, et al. Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J 56 Suppl 1: 31-44, 2011.

21. Goud RS, Nagesh L, Shoba F, et al. Assessment of Discomfort Experienced by School Children While Performing ‘ART’ and ‘MCP’-An Experimental Study. J Dent (Tehran) 9: 229-237, 2012.

22. Frencken JE. Evolution of the the ART approach: highlights and achievements. J Appl Oral Sci 17 Suppl: 78-83, 2009.

23. Gibson WA. Human subjects in dental research: coping with the regulations. Council on Dental Research. J Am Dent Assoc 110: 243-246, 1985.

24. Beauchamp J, Caufield PW, Crall JJ, et al. Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. J Am Dent Assoc 139: 257-268, 2008.

25. Weintraub JA. Pit and fissure sealants in high-caries-risk individuals. J Dent Educ 65: 1084-1090, 2001.

26. Bonifacio CC, Kleverlaan CJ, Raggio DP, et al. Physical-mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment. Aust Dent J 54: 233-237, 2009.

27. Frencken JE, Makoni F & Sithole WD. ART restorations and glass ionomer sealants in Zimbabwe: survival after 3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 26: 372-381, 1998.

28. Zanata RL, Navarro MF, Barbosa SH, et al. Clinical evaluation of three restorative materials applied in a minimal intervention caries treatment approach. J Public Health Dent 63: 221-226, 2003.