Question · asked by 1 review

Microinvasive techniques (resin infiltration, resin/GIC sealant, or glass ionomer varnish) vs Conventional restoration: Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression

Population
Children and adults with non-cavitated proximal (interproximal) caries lesions in primary and/or permanent teeth (ages 3-45)
Intervention
Microinvasive techniques (resin infiltration, resin/GIC sealant, or glass ionomer varnish)
Comparison
Conventional restoration
Outcome
Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression

No eligible studies compared microinvasive techniques with invasive (restorative) treatment; this planned comparison had zero included studies.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Microinvasive techniques (resin infiltration, sealant, glass ionomer) vs Invasive treatment (conventional restorations)
Radiographic progression of proximal caries lesions · Children and adults with non-cavitated proximal (interproximal) caries lesions in primary and/or permanent teeth (ages… · Multiple countries (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, USA, Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, Thailand); dental clinic/community settings
No eligible studies compared microinvasive techniques with invasive (restorative) treatment; this planned comparison had zero included studies.
Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth-… (2025) All outcomes
no estimate extracted0 studiesNo studies found

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth- systematic review and…
2025 All outcomes
May 202417Low / Critically Low

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.