Do Root Lesions Tend to Develop in the Same People Who Develop Coronal Lesions?

OBJECTIVES: The three purposes of this study are to: (1) describe the relationship between the prevalence of coronal caries and root caries; (2) describe the relationship between the three-year incidence of coronal caries and root caries; and (3) if the two conditions are associated, develop a multiple regression model that identifies characteristics distinguishing people who had increments of both root caries and coronal caries from people who had increments of either coronal caries or root caries, or who had no new caries. METHODS: Dental examinations and interviews were conducted in the homes of a randomly selected, stratified sample of people over the age of 65 years in five North Carolina counties. The relationships between coronal and root D and DF were analyzed through contingency table analyses, and ordinal logistic regression was used to identify characteristics that differentiated people who had both coronal and root D over the three years from people who had either coronal or root D and people who had no new disease. RESULTS: Evidence of root and coronal caries in whites was much more likely to be in the form of fillings, while for blacks, it was more likely to be in the form of untreated decay. Prevalence rates of coronal and root D and DF were significantly associated for both blacks and whites. Incidence rates based on DF indicated that root and coronal caries were not associated in whites, but were associated in blacks. People more likely to experience both types of caries had more gingival recession at baseline, greater average attachment loss over the three years, and lactobacilli at baseline. In addition, the presence of Porphymonas gingivalis at three years was important for whites. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that coronal and root caries do tend to appear together in the same individuals, but fillings attenuate that relationship. The impact of dental treatment on the epidemiology of dental caries appears to be considerable and calls into question whether the F component of the caries index is related to disease as defined by epidemiologic criteria.