Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2699542

[Root surface caries].

V Vrbic
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Review of the current knowledge related to the etiology, clinical picture, treatment, and prevention of root surface caries (RSC) is presented. The prevalence of RSC rates vary from 20 to 40 percentage depending on the age of the population studied and the definition of RSC applied. Prevention of RSC requires oral hygiene instructions and dietary advices as well as drinking of optimally fluoridated water combined with the appropriate use of topical fluoride agents. Glass ionomer cements are considered the best and the most successfully used filling material for root surface cavities. Epidemiologic data indicate that RSC increases with age and becomes a major health problem in dentistry. Since our present knowledge about root caries is insufficient, more research is needed in every aspect of the disease.

Explore related subjects

Dental CariesHumansTooth RootEnglish AbstractJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

V Vrbic. 1989. [Root surface caries].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2699542/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence for dental caries detection: An umbrella review.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed as a tool to improve dental caries detection across imaging modalities; however, its clinical value remains uncertain. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize and critically appraise systematic reviews evaluating AI for caries detection and diagnosis. An umbrella review was conducted following PRIOR guidance (PROSPERO CRD420261340728). Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to 15 March 2026. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and overlap of primary studies was quantified using the corrected covered area (CCA). Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which five reported diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses using bivariate or HSROC models. Across these meta-analyses, pooled sensitivity ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 and specificity from 0.85 to 0.91. Most systems were based on deep learning models applied to bitewing radiographs and intraoral photographs. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in imaging modalities, lesion thresholds, analytical tasks, and evaluation metrics. In addition, a high degree of overlap across reviews and recurrent methodological limitations, including reliance on retrospective datasets, limited external validation, and inconsistent reporting, substantially weaken the reliability of the evidence. Although AI models demonstrate high diagnostic performance under experimental conditions, current evidence does not support their use as stand-alone diagnostic tools. Their clinical applicability remains limited, and implementation should be restricted to decision-support contexts until robust prospective validation demonstrates meaningful impact on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

Dental Caries↗