68. Lussi A, Jaeggi T. Erosion—diagnosis and risk factors. Clin Oral Investig 2008;12(Suppl 1):S5–S13
69. Attin T. Methods for assessment of dental erosion. Monogr Oral Sci 2006;20:152–172
70. Addy M, Shellis RP. Interaction between attrition, abrasion and erosion in tooth wear. Monogr Oral Sci 2006;20:17–31
71. Attin T, Knöfel S, Buchalla W, Tütüncü R. In situ evaluation of different remineralization periods to decrease brushing abrasion of demineralized enamel. Caries Res 2001;35(3):216–222
72. Lagerweij MD, Buchalla W, Kohnke S, Becker K, Lennon AM, Attin T. Prevention of erosion and abrasion by a high fluoride concentration gel applied at high frequencies. Caries Res 2006; 40(2):148–153
73. Wiegand A, Attin T. Influence of fluoride on the prevention of erosive lesions—a review. Oral Health Prev Dent 2003;1(4): 245–253
74. Schlueter N, Ganss C, Hardt M, Schegietz D, Klimek J. Effect of pepsin on erosive tissue loss and the efficacy of fluoridation measures in dentine in vitro. Acta Odontol Scand 2007;65(5): 298–305
75. van Strijp AJ, Jansen DC, DeGroot J, ten Cate JM, Everts V. Host-derived proteinases and degradation of dentine collagen in situ. Caries Res 2003;37(1):58–65
76. Magalhães AC, Wiegand A, Rios D, Hannas A, Attin T, Buzalaf MA. Chlorhexidine and green tea extract reduce dentin erosion and abrasion in situ. J Dent 2009;37(12):994–998
4 Paradigm Shift in Cariology
Sebastian Paris, Hendrik Meyer-Lueckel
How Paradigms Influence Our Clinical Approach
The Specific Plaque Hypothesis
The Ecological Plaque Hypothesis
The previous chapters have addressed the etiology, pathogenesis, and clinical appearance of caries. This brief chapter will discuss the effects of scientific caries models and paradigms as well as approaches to treat the disease. Furthermore, pathogenesis will be illustrated in a model that will allow us to categorize the various options for intervention in Chapter 9. This chapter addresses the following topics:
• The influence of scientific paradigms on dentists’ approaches to treat caries
• The specific and ecological plaque hypotheses
• A current model of the pathogenesis of caries
Scientific Paradigms
Paradigms are understood to be the generally accepted scientific concepts and the worldview in a particular era. Paradigms are based on theories and models and form the scientific framework in which the scientists work. Abstract, idealized, and simplified models are frequently used to make the complex phenomena and interrelationships of nature comprehensible, explicable, and predictable. Of course, simplifications, idealizations, and abstractions can be problematic. Paradigms as well as the models and theories that underlie them come up against limits in certain situations. A paradigm, with its associated theories and models, is always accepted by the scientific community within a particular field as long as it is capable of satisfactorily explaining the relationships in nature and making reliable predictions. Once a paradigm meets its limits, it needs to be modified or replaced by a competing paradigm with its own theories and models. The new paradigm is then gradually accepted by more and more members of the scientific community, and the old one is finally abandoned. This process is termed a “scientific revolution.”1,2
Dentistry and medicine are also influenced by scientific paradigms. For example, the dentistry that is practiced in many countries, and which is represented in this book, is based on what is generally termed “Western academic medicine.” Contrastingly, “traditional Chinese medicine” avails itself of different paradigms which are mostly incompatible with Western academic medicine. The various medical paradigms naturally influence the ways in which we treat illnesses. Consequently, the therapeutic approaches in “Western academic medicine” are completely different from those in traditional Chinese medicine.
Paradigms and theories also reflect the scientific and social experiences of the scientists who created them. For example, the specific plaque hypothesis and the forms of therapy that are derived from it (see below), which were created during the beginning of the second half of the last century, reflect the widespread concept of human domination, scientifically and technologically, of a specific (hostile) environment. The ecological plaque hypothesis that was developed in recent decades arose during a period in which people, particularly in industrialized nations, became aware that fighting the environment has negative consequences. Hence protecting the environment and species is recommendable from both ethical and pragmatic points of view. In medicine, it was revealed that microorganisms are not harmful per se, and that they have irreplaceable, positive functions in our body.3 Consequently, the ecological plaque hypothesis does not point to the environment (infection with certain bacteria) as the primary cause of caries, but rather to our own behavior.
The present abandonment of the specific plaque hypothesis and embracing of the ecological plaque hypothesis is a classic paradigm shift that is bringing about a sustainable change in treatment concepts in dentistry.4
How Paradigms Influence Our Clinical Approach
The Specific Plaque Hypothesis
The chemo-parasitic theory that was founded by Miller in the beginning of the last century5 described the metabolic activity of bacteria as the main cause of caries. Later experiments with gnotobiotic (germ-free) rodents identified certain specific types of bacteria such as mutans streptococci and lactobacilli as essential factors in the etiology of caries.6–8 It was revealed that gnotobiotic hamsters did not develop caries even when they consumed sugar-containing food, whereas hamsters infected with Steptococcus mutans developed caries when they consumed cariogenic food. The resulting specific plaque hypothesis describes the infection of a host with specific pathogenic germs (e.g., S. mutans or Lactobacillus spp.). Consequently, caries was, and is, described frequently as a “transmittable infectious disease.”9 This view has influenced dentistry for many years.
If caries is considered an infectious disease, the most attractive preventive measure, as is the case with other classic infectious diseases, is to avoid contact with the pathogen. This consequentially led to preventive methods for avoiding the transfer of germs, for example, from the mother to the child. It was frequently recommended that the mother and child avoid the exchange of saliva.10 This led to recommendations
