Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Jul:74:15-22.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.026. Epub 2018 Apr 30.

Sealing or infiltrating proximal carious lesions

Affiliations
Review

Sealing or infiltrating proximal carious lesions

Joachim Krois et al. J Dent. 2018 Jul.

Erratum in

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

LinkOut - more resources