Question · asked by 1 review
Resin infiltration vs Non-invasive treatment: Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression
- Population
- Patients with non-cavitated proximal (approximal) caries lesions (primary or permanent dentition)
- Intervention
- Resin infiltration
- Comparison
- Non-invasive treatment
- Outcome
- Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression
Resin infiltration probably reduces the odds of proximal lesion progression compared with non-invasive treatment (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29; moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 5 · 83.3%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 1 · 16.7%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Resin infiltration (Icon) vs Non-invasive treatment Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Patients with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions · Longest available follow-up Resin infiltration probably reduces the odds of proximal lesion progression compared with non-invasive treatment (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.29; moderate certainty). Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2021) All outcomes | OR 0.21 [0.15, 0.30] | 11 studies · 549 participants | Moderate |
Resin infiltration (Icon) vs Non-invasive treatment Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Patients with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions · Longest available follow-up, Caries risk: low In the low caries-risk subgroup, resin infiltration reduced the odds of lesion progression (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.72; ungraded subgroup). Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2021) All outcomes | OR 0.24 [0.08, 0.72] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Resin infiltration (Icon) vs Non-invasive treatment Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Patients with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions · Longest available follow-up, Caries risk: moderate to high In the moderate to high caries-risk subgroup, resin infiltration reduced the odds of lesion progression (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.39; ungraded subgroup). Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2021) All outcomes | OR 0.20 [0.10, 0.39] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Resin infiltration (Icon) vs Non-invasive treatment Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Patients with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions · Longest available follow-up, Caries risk: moderate In the moderate caries-risk subgroup, the difference between infiltration and non-invasive treatment was not significant (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.27; ungraded subgroup). Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2021) All outcomes | OR 0.32 [0.01, 8.27] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Resin infiltration (Icon) vs Non-invasive treatment Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Patients with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions · Longest available follow-up, Caries risk: high In the high caries-risk subgroup, resin infiltration reduced the odds of lesion progression (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.37; ungraded subgroup). Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2021) All outcomes | OR 0.14 [0.05, 0.37] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Resin infiltration (Icon) vs Non-invasive treatment Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Patients with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions · Longest available follow-up, Caries risk: low to moderate In the low to moderate caries-risk subgroup, resin infiltration reduced the odds of lesion progression (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.81; ungraded subgroup). Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2021) All outcomes | OR 0.38 [0.18, 0.81] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2021 All outcomes | 6 April 2020 (from inception) | 22 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Resin infiltration vs Non-invasive measures (fluoride varnish/toothpaste, flossing, oral hygiene instruction, sham/standard of care) · Children and adults with non-cavitated proximal (interproximal) caries lesions in… · 1 review
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- The Effect of Resin Infiltration on the Progression of Proximal Caries Lesions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. · 2020 · included by 1 of these review
- Resin infiltration: An effective adjunct strategy for managing high caries risk—A within-person randomized controlled clinical trial · 2018 · included by 1 of these review
- Proximal carious lesions infiltration—a 3-year follow-up study of a randomized controlled clinical trial · 2017 · included by 1 of these review
- Efficacy of resin infiltration of proximal caries in primary molars: 1-year follow-up of a split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial · 2017 · included by 1 of these review
- Resin Infiltration of Caries in Primary Molars in a Community Setting: 24-Month Randomized Controlled Trial Findings · 2017 · included by 1 of these review
- Pragmatic RCT on the Efficacy of Proximal Caries Infiltration · 2016 · included by 1 of these review
- Treatment of Proximal Superficial Caries Lesions on Primary Molar Teeth with Resin Infiltration and Fluoride Varnish versus Fluoride… · 2010 · included by 1 of these review
- Resin Infiltration of Caries Lesions · 2010 · included by 1 of these review
- Bagher 2018 · included by 1 of these review
- Vaghela 2017 · included by 1 of these review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.