Sealing or infiltrating proximal carious lesions
- PMID: 29723548
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.026
Sealing or infiltrating proximal carious lesions
Erratum in
-
Corrigendum to "Sealing or infiltrating proximal carious lesions" [J. Dent. 74 (2018) 15-22].J Dent. 2018 Sep;76:137-138. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.06.015. Epub 2018 Jun 30. J Dent. 2018. PMID: 29970304 No abstract available.
Abstract
Objectives: Micro-invasive treatment (sealing, infiltration) seems more efficacious to arrest early (non-cavitated) proximal carious lesions than non-invasive treatment (NI). Uncertainty remains as to the efficacy of sealing versus infiltration and the robustness of the evidence. We aimed to review and synthesize this evidence using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) and to perform trial sequential analysis (TSA).
Sources: Searching three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central) was complemented by hand searches and cross-referencing.
Study selection: Randomized controlled trials comparing micro-invasive strategies against each other, NI or placebo for managing proximal carious lesions were included. The primary outcome was radiographically assessed lesion progression. Pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses as well as TSA were used for synthesis.
Data: Thirteen split-mouth studies (486 participants, mean age 15 years) were included. Mean follow-up was 25 months (min/max 12/36 months). Firm evidence on the superior efficacy of sealing/infiltration over NI (OR; 95% CI: 0.25; 0.18-0.32) was reached. Firm evidence was also reached on the superior efficacy of sealing (OR; 95% CI: 0.29; 0.18-0.46, 7 studies) and infiltration (OR; 95% CI: 0.22; 0.15-0.33, 7 studies) over NI. One study compared infiltration versus sealing and found no significant difference (0.70; 0.34-1.47). Based on Bayesian NMA, infiltration was ranked first in 80% of the simulations (sealing 20%, NI 0%). The surface-under-the-cumulative-ranking (SUCRA) values were 0.90 for infiltration, 0.60 for sealing and 0.00 for NI. We did not detect significant inconsistency (p = 0.89, node-split).
Conclusions: Sealing or infiltration are likely to be more efficacious for arresting early (non-cavitated) proximal lesions than NI.
Clinical significance: Practitioners should strive to perform micro-invasive treatment instead of NI for early proximal lesions. The decision between sealing or infiltration should be guided by practical concerns beyond efficacy.
Keywords: Biomaterials; Caries treatment; Clinical studies/trials; Evidence-based dentistry; Resins; Sealants; Systematic reviews.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Infiltration or sealing of noncavitated proximal carious lesions is probably effective in preventing their progression compared with noninvasive strategies.J Am Dent Assoc. 2018 Dec;149(12):e165. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2018.05.032. Epub 2018 Jul 31. J Am Dent Assoc. 2018. PMID: 30075857 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials