Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 384

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Terminology

Open access
Innes, N.P.T., Frencken, J.E., Bjørndal, L., Maltz, M., Manton, D.J., Ricketts, D., Van Landuyt, K., Banerjee, A., Campus, G., Doméjean, S., Fontana, M., Leal, S., Lo, E., Machiulskiene, V., Schulte, A., Splieth, C., Zandona, A., Schwendicke, F.·2016·Advances in Dental Research

Abstract

Variation in the terminology used to describe clinical management of carious lesions has contributed to a lack of clarity in the scientific literature and beyond. In this article, the International Caries Consensus Collaboration presents 1) issues around terminology, a scoping review of current words used in the literature for caries removal techniques, and 2) agreed terms and definitions, explaining how these were decided. Dental caries is the name of the disease, and the carious lesion is the consequence and manifestation of the disease—the signs or symptoms of the disease. The term dental caries management should be limited to situations involving control of the disease through preventive and noninvasive means at a patient level, whereas carious lesion management controls the disease symptoms at the tooth level. While it is not possible to directly relate the visual appearance of carious lesions’ clinical manifestations to the histopathology, we have based the terminology around the clinical consequences of disease (soft, leathery, firm, and hard dentine). Approaches to carious tissue removal are defined: 1) selective removal of carious tissue—including selective removal to soft dentine and selective removal to firm dentine; 2) stepwise removal—including stage 1, selective removal to soft dentine, and stage 2, selective removal to firm dentine 6 to 12 mo later; and 3) nonselective removal to hard dentine—formerly known as complete caries removal (technique no longer recommended). Adoption of these terms, around managing dental caries and its sequelae, will facilitate improved understanding and communication among researchers and within dental educators and the wider clinical dentistry community.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022034516639276

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 384

Metadata

Authors
Innes, N. P. T., Frencken, J. E., Bjørndal, L., Maltz, M., Manton, D. J., Ricketts, D., Van Landuyt, K., Banerjee, A., Campus, G., Doméjean, S., Fontana, M., Leal, S., Lo, E., Machiulskiene, V., Schulte, A., Splieth, C., Zandona, A., & Schwendicke, F.
Venue
Advances in Dental Research
Published
2016-04-20
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
49-57
ISSN
  • 0895-9374 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-0737
OpenAlex
W2339024366
Cited by
384
References
34
FWCI
42.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Terminology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0022034516639276
The paper
Innes, N. P. T., Frencken, J. E., Bjørndal, L., Maltz, M., Manton, D. J., Ricketts, D., Van Landuyt, K., Banerjee, A., Campus, G., Doméjean, S., Fontana, M., Leal, S., Lo, E., Machiulskiene, V., Schulte, A., Splieth, C., Zandona, A., & Schwendicke, F. (2016). Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Terminology. Advances in Dental Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516639276

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.