State and regional board exams the final gateway to dental licensure. One would expect the requirements for licensure would reflect procedures that are to each patient's oral health and are consistent with the of most dental schools. We conducted an Internet survey to determine whether Class 2 tooth preparations based on caries lesions whose radiolucencies were confined to enamel were allowed for state and regional exams. Information obtained for 46 of the 50 states revealed that 33 of the states (72%) allowed teeth with either an E1 of E2 lesion to be restored. Seventeen of these states allowed teeth with an E1 to be restored. Only 12 of the 46 states (26%) covered by these boards did not allow teeth with E1 or E2 lesions to be surgically treated. In contrast, a recent report indicates that only 30% of dental schools permit teeth with enamel lesions to be restored to satisfy clinical requirements and competencies.
References
1.
Anusavice KJ (1989). Summary statements. In: Quality evaluation of dental restorations: criteria for placement and replacement. Anusavice KJ, editor. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co., pp. 412-413.
2.
Benn DK, Meltzer MI (1996). Will modern caries management reduce restorations in dental practice? J Am Coll Dent63(3):39-44.
3.
Benn DK, Watson TF (1989). Correlation between film position, bite-wing shadows, clinical pitfalls, and the histologic size of approximal lesions. Quintessence Int20:131-41.
4.
Bille J., Thylstrup A. (1982). Radiographic diagnosis and clinical tissue changes in relation to treatment of approximal carious lesions. Caries Res16:1-6.
5.
Corpron RE, More FG, Clark JW, Korytnicki D., Kowalski CJ (1986). In vivo remineralization of artificial enamel lesions by a fluoride dentifrice or mouthrinse. Caries Res20:48-55.
6.
Dijkman A., Huizinga E., Ruben J., Arends J. (1990). Remineralization of human enamel in situ after 3 months: the effect of not brushing versus the effect of an F dentifrice and an F-free dentifrice. Caries Res24:263-266.
7.
el-Mowafy OM, Lewis DW (1994). Restorative decision making by Ontario dentists. J Can Dent Assoc60:305-310, 313-316 [published erratum appears in J Can Dent Assoc60:487, 1994]).
8.
Heilman JR, Jordan TH, Warwick R., Wefel JS (1997). Remineralization of root surfaces demineralized in solutions of differing fluoride levels. Caries Res31:423-428.
9.
Hintze H., Wenzel A., Danielsen B. (1999). Behavior of approximal carious lesions assessed by clinical examination after tooth separation and radiography: a 2.5-year longitudinal study in young adults. Caries Res33:415-422.
10.
Hugoson A., Goran K., Bergendal T., Laurell L., Lundgren D. (1988a). Caries prevalence and distribution in individuals aged 3-20 in Jonkoping, Sweden, 1973,1978, and 1983. Swed Dent J12:125-132.
11.
Hugoson A., Goran K., Hallonsten AL (1988b). Caries prevalence and distribution in individuals aged 20-80 in Jonkoping, Sweden, 1973 and 1983. Swed Dent J12(4):133-140.
12.
Kay EJ, Nuttall NM, Knill-Jones R. (1992). Restorative treatment thresholds and agreement in treatment decision-making. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol20:265-268.
13.
Marthaler TM, Germann M. (1970). Radiographic and visual appearance of small smooth surface caries lesions studied on extracted teeth. Caries Res4:224-242.
14.
Mejare I., Sundberg H., Espelid I., Tveit B. (1999). Caries assessment and restorative treatment thresholds reported by Swedish dentists. Acta Odontol Scand57:149-154.
15.
Mellberg JR, Chomicki WG, Mallon DE, Castrovince LA (1985). Remineralization in vivo of artificial caries lesions by a monofluorophosphate dentifrice. Caries Res20:270-277.
16.
Mertz-Fairhurst EJ, Curtis JW, Ergle JW, Rueggeberg FA, Adair SM (1998). Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations: results at year 10. J Am Dent Assoc129:55-66.
17.
Mileman PA, van der Weele LT (1996). The role of caries recognition: treatment decisions from bitewing radiographs. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiol25:228-233.
18.
Mileman P., Purdell-Lewis D., van der Weele L. (1983). Effect of variation in caries diagnosis and degree of caries on treatment decisions by dental teachers using bitewing radiographs. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol11:356-362.
19.
Pitts NB, Rimmer PA (1992). An in vivo comparison of radiographic and directly assessed clinical caries status of posterior approximal surfaces in primary and permanent teeth. Caries Res26:146-152.
20.
Riordan PJ, Espelid I., Tveit AB (1991). Radiographic interpretation and treatment decisions among dental therapists and dentists in Western Australia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol19:268-271.
21.
Tanzer JM (1988). Introduction. In: Re-restoration of teeth: materials failure, secondary caries, and socio-economic factors; 1988 1990. Tanzer JM, editor. Montreal, Canada: International and American Associations of Dental Research; 1988. p. 3.
22.
Yorty JS, Brown KB (1999). Caries risk assessment/treatment programs in US dental schools. J Dent Educ63:745-747.
