Abstract Conventional views associate microbial biofilm with demineralization in root caries (RC) onset, while research on their collagenases role in the breakdown of collagen matrix has been sporadically developed, primarily in vitro. Recent discoveries, however, reveal proteolytic bacteria enrichment, specially Porphyromonas and other periodontitis-associated bacteria in subgingivally extended lesions, suggesting a potential role in RC by the catabolism of dentin organic matrix. Moreover, genes encoding proteases and bacterial collagenases, including the U32 family collagenases, were found to be overexpressed in both coronal and root dentinal caries. Despite these advancements, to prove microbial collagenolytic proteases’ definitive role in RC remains a significant challenge. A more thorough investigation is warranted to explore the potential of anti-collagenolytic agents in modulating biofilm metabolic processes or inhibiting/reducing the size of RC lesions. Prospective treatments targeting collagenases and promoting biomodification through collagen fibril cross-linking show promise for RC prevention and management. However, these studies are currently in the in vitro phase, necessitating additional research to translate findings into clinical applications. This is a comprehensive state-of-the-art review aimed to explore contributing factors to the formation of RC lesions, particularly focusing on collagen degradation in root tissues by microbial collagenases. (RC onset developed discoveries however enrichment periodontitisassociated periodontitis associated lesions Moreover U U3 advancements challenge anticollagenolytic anti inhibitingreducing inhibiting reducing crosslinking cross linking management However phase applications stateoftheart state art

Abstract It is not uncommon that oral healthcare professionals and researchers interchange the use of the terms minimum/minimal intervention and minimally invasive dentistry. However, these terms apply to two different, but related, concepts. Minimum intervention dentistry, to be more appropriately addressed in this paper as minimum intervention oral care (MIOC), is an oral healthcare delivery framework that encompasses four interlinked clinical domains. These domains are: identifying disease - detection, longitudinal risk/susceptibility assessment, investigation, diagnosis and the development of a personalized care plan; prevention of lesions/control of disease – patient behaviour management, non-invasive remineralisation of the enamel and dentine, biofilm and diet control, micro-invasive sealants and infiltration techniques to arrest and reverse incipient lesions; minimally invasive operative procedures including selective carious dentine removal, the “5Rs” management of the tooth-restoration complex (review, refurbish, re-seal, repair and replace) amongst other restorative interventions; and tailored recall/review/re-assessment consultations. This framework includes that minimally invasive operative dentistry (MID), that although a critical operative clinical domain, should be viewed as one of the pillars of minimum intervention oral healthcare (MIOC), applied across all disciplines of restorative dentistry, not just caries management. The aim of this review is to clarify these differences and emphasize the importance of minimally invasive operative dentistry (MID) within the context of minimum intervention oral care (MIOC). MIOC is applicable to all disciplines within restorative dentistry, including clinical caries management.

Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate whether dentists and dental undergraduate students know the terminology of the International Caries Consensus Collaboration (ICCC), and make their restorative treatment decisions regarding carious tissue removal accordingly. Data collection was performed using an electronic questionnaire, considering: a) profile of the respondent; b) analysis of four clinical cases with respect to possible management strategies; and c) questions on cariology field terminology. Sample size consisted of 175 dentists and 66 last semester dental students. Statistical analyses were performed comparing profile, type of institution and dental specialty of the participants. Results showed students were less conservative and agreed less with the ICCC than dentists, and private schools, less than public institutions. Private institutions were 12% (95%CI = 0.833–0.949; p = 0.000) more likely to be less updated with the ICCC recommendations than public institutions, and dentists were 20% more likely to agree with them than students (95%CI = 1.118–1.302; p = 0.000). Dentists were 66% more likely to be conservative than students (95%CI = 0.203–0.554; p = 0.000); dentists and students who graduated or were graduating from public universities were twice as likely to be conservative as those from private universities (95%CI = 1.336–3.333; p = 0.001). In conclusion, students in the last semester are less conservative than dentists, and respondents who graduated or were graduating from public dental schools were more aligned with the current concepts of the ICCC. Several answers were not aligned with ICCC directives, thus showing that management of deep carious lesions still causes restorative therapeutic insecurity.