Systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization

Abstract

The present review systematically analyzed in vitro and in situ studies investigating physical diffusion barriers (sealants, desensitizer or adhesives) to prevent the development or the progression of root (dentin) demineralization. Three electronic databases (PubMed-Medline, CENTRAL, Ovid-EMBASE) were screened for studies from 1946 to 2022. Cross-referencing was used to identify further articles. Article selection and data abstraction were done in duplicate. Languages were not restricted. The type of outcome was not restricted, and their mean differences (MD) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Risk of Bias was graded using Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. From 171 eligible studies, 34 were selected for full-text analysis evaluating 69 different materials, and 17 studies-still evaluating 36 different materials-were included (3 in situ and 14 in vitro). Ten studies evaluated desensitizers; 8 adhesives; and 1 infiltration. Meta-analyses were possible for all 17 studies. Meta-analyses revealed that lesion depth after no treatment was significantly higher than after the application of single-step adhesives (MD[_95%CI] = - 49.82[- 69.34; - 30.30]) and multi-step adhesives (MD[_95%CI]=-60.09 [-92.65, -27.54]). No significant differences in the lesion depth increase between single- and multi-step adhesives could be observed (MD[_95%CI]=30.13 [-21.14, 81.39]). Furthermore, compared to no treatment the increase of the lesion depth was significantly hampered using desensitizers (MD[_95%CI] = - 38.02[- 51.74; - 24.31]). Furthermore, the included studies presented unclear or high risk. A physical diffusion barrier can significantly hamper the increase of lesion depth under cariogenic conditions. Furthermore, multi-step adhesives seem not to be more effective than single-step adhesives. However, this conclusion is based on only few in vitro and in situ studies.

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram.

Figure 2

Quantitative meta-analyses for increase of the lesion depth comparing (A) single-step adhesives versus untreated control, (B) multi-step adhesives versus untreated control, (C) single-step versus multi-step adhesives (D) desensitizer versus untreated control; and (E) same as D, but for outcome. For each comparison MD, 95% CI, forest plots, heterogeneity parameter (I²) as well as overall statistics (Z, P) are shown.

Figure 3

Risk of included studies. − high; + low; ? unknown. *in one group the material was used as recommended by the manufacture, in a second group the application of the tested material was modified.