Monitoring vs Intervention

The decision between monitoring and irreversible intervention is a threshold question at its earliest stage.

It is not defined by detection alone.

It is not defined by minor pathology alone.

It is not defined by patient anxiety alone.

The decision must be evaluated through structure, force, time, and long-term stability.

The Structural Decision Framework™ is a threshold-based clinical decision model in dentistry that evaluates irreversible treatment using four variables: structure, force, time, and long-term stability.

Structure

Structural evaluation includes:

Depth and extent of lesion or crack

Remaining enamel and dentin thickness

Integrity of surrounding tooth structure

Location relative to load-bearing zones

Early structural compromise may not immediately reduce load-bearing capacity below acceptable tolerance.

If structural reserve remains high and geometry remains stable, monitoring may preserve long-term stability.

If structural compromise approaches critical load-bearing regions, convergence may be near.

Force

Force evaluation includes:

Occlusal contact patterns

Magnitude of functional load

Presence of parafunction

Concentration of force at compromised site

Minor structural defects under minimal force may remain stable across projected time.

The same defect under high parafunctional load may progress toward instability.

Force determines whether compromise remains contained or accelerates toward convergence.

Time

Time projection includes:

Rate of lesion progression

Crack propagation velocity

Patient compliance with preventive measures

Frequency of reassessment

Monitoring is justified only when progression is slow and predictable.

If projected force across projected time remains within structural tolerance and long-term stability remains acceptable, monitoring preserves structural reserve.

If projected progression suggests accelerating instability before the next evaluation, threshold convergence may occur during delay.

Long-Term Stability

Long-term stability requires comparison between preservation and intervention.

Monitoring preserves structural reserve but carries risk of progression.

Intervention removes structure immediately but may improve projected stability if convergence is imminent.

If projected long-term stability under monitoring remains acceptable relative to intervention, threshold has not been crossed.

If projected long-term stability under monitoring declines below acceptable predictability and intervention improves projected outcome, escalation is indicated.

Threshold Identification

Threshold convergence occurs when projected force across projected time acting on compromised structure reduces long-term stability below acceptable predictability under monitoring.

Monitoring is responsible when convergence is absent.

Intervention is responsible when convergence is present.

Monitoring is not delay.

Intervention is not reflex.

Both are threshold-based decisions governed by structure, force, time, and long-term stability.

The next chapter addresses bite instability at the system level.