Tenuta LMA, van der Veen MH, Machiulskiene V. Prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases at individual and population level: consensus report of group 3 of joint EFP/ORCA workshop on the boundaries between caries and periodontal diseases. J Clin Periodontol 2017; 44 (Suppl. 18): S85-S93. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12687. AbstractBackground: The non-communicable diseases dental caries and periodontal diseases pose an enormous burden on mankind. The dental biofilm is a major biological determinant common to the development of both diseases, and they share common risk factors and social determinants, important for their prevention and control. The remit of this working group was to review the current state of knowledge on epidemiology, socio-behavioural aspects as well as plaque control with regard to dental caries and periodontal diseases. Methods: Discussions were informed by three systematic reviews on (i) the global burden of dental caries and periodontitis; (ii) socio-behavioural aspects in the prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases at an individual and population level; and (iii) mechanical and chemical plaque control in the simultaneous management of gingivitis and dental caries. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on expert opinion of the participants.

Managing carious lesionsInnesGeneral rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in Discovery Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from Discovery Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain.• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Variation in the terminology used to describe clinical management of carious lesions has 57 contributed to a lack of clarity in the scientific literature and beyond. The International Caries 58 Consensus Collaboration (ICCC), present issues around terminology, a rapid review of current 59 words used in the literature for caries removal techniques and present agreed terms and 60 definitions, explaining how these were decided. 61 1 Managing carious lesions: Consensus recommendations on terminology

A 2-day workshop of ORCA and the IADR Cariology Research Group was organized to discuss and reach consensus on definitions of the most commonly used terms in cariology. The aims were to identify and to select the most commonly used terms of dental caries and dental caries management and to define them based on current concepts. Terms related to definition, diagnosis, risk assessment, and monitoring of dental caries were included. The Delphi process was used to establish terms to be considered using the nominal group method favored by consensus. Of 222 terms originally suggested by six cariologists from different countries, a total of 59 terms were reviewed after removing duplicates and unnecessary words. Sixteen experts in cariology took part in the process of reaching consensus about the definitions of the selected caries terms. Decisions were made following thorough “round table” discussions of each term and confirmed by secret electronic voting. Full agreement (100%) was reached on 17 terms, while the definitions of 6 terms were below the agreed 80% threshold of consensus. The suggested terminology is recommended for use in research, in public health, as well as in clinical practice.

The International Caries Consensus Collaboration undertook a consensus process and here presents clinical recommendations for carious tissue removal and managing cavitated carious lesions, including restoration, based on texture of demineralized dentine. Dentists should manage the disease dental caries and control activity of existing cavitated lesions to preserve hard tissues and retain teeth long-term. Entering the restorative cycle should be avoided as far as possible. Controlling the disease in cavitated carious lesions should be attempted using methods which are aimed at biofilm removal or control first. Only when cavitated carious lesions either are noncleansable or can no longer be sealed are restorative interventions indicated. When a restoration is indicated, the priorities are as follows: preserving healthy and remineralizable tissue, achieving a restorative seal, maintaining pulpal health, and maximizing restoration success. Carious tissue is removed purely to create conditions for long-lasting restorations. Bacterially contaminated or demineralized tissues close to the pulp do not need to be removed. In deeper lesions in teeth with sensible (vital) pulps, preserving pulpal health should be prioritized, while in shallow or moderately deep lesions, restoration longevity becomes more important. For teeth with shallow or moderately deep cavitated lesions, carious tissue removal is performed according toselective removal to firm dentine.In deep cavitated lesions in primary or permanent teeth,selective removal to soft dentineshould be performed, although in permanent teeth,stepwise removalis an option. The evidence and, therefore, these recommendations support less invasive carious lesion management, delaying entry to, and slowing down, the restorative cycle by preserving tooth tissue and retaining teeth long-term.

–  An increasing prevalence of traumatic dental injury (TDI) has been reported in the last few decades. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and severity of TDI and its association with socio‐demographics and physical characteristics in the anterior permanent teeth of 12‐year‐old Brazilian schoolchildren. A cross‐sectional study was carried out in a population‐based sample of 1528 subjects attending 33 public and nine private schools (response rate of 83.17%). A single calibrated examiner performed the clinical examinations at the schools and recorded the TDI index (Children’s Dental Health Survey criteria), overjet and lip coverage. Height and weight were measured to calculate the body mass index (BMI). Parents/legal guardians answered a questionnaire containing socio‐demographic questions. The relationships among TDI, socio‐demographic variables and physical characteristics were assessed by survey Poisson regression models. The prevalence of TDI was 34.79% (mild trauma = 24.37%; severe trauma = 10.43%). Male schoolchildren (RR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.23–1.61, P = 0.002) and schoolchildren from low socioeconomic status (RR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.07–1.64, P = 0.021) were more likely to present at least one tooth with TDI, whereas students attending 7th grade (advanced students) were less likely to experience TDI (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.43–0.82, P = 0.012). Regarding the severity analysis, students of mid‐high (RR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.09–1.94, P = 0.022), mid‐low (RR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.01–2.77, P = 0.045) and low (RR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.11–2.85, P = 0.027) socioeconomic status were more likely to have mild trauma when compared with schoolchildren of high socioeconomic status. No significant association between severe trauma and socioeconomic status was observed. In conclusion, this study showed a high prevalence of TDI in 12‐year‐old Brazilian schoolchildren. Socio‐demographic data and school achievement were associated with TDI.