Question · asked by 1 review
Resin infiltration vs Non-invasive measures (fluoride varnish/toothpaste, flossing, oral hygiene instruction, sham/standard of care): Caries (lesion) progression (radiographic)
- Population
- Dentate children and adults with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions extending into enamel or dentine (not pulp) in primary or permanent teeth (trial ages 4 to 39 years)
- Intervention
- Resin infiltration
- Comparison
- Non-invasive measures (fluoride varnish/toothpaste, flossing, oral hygiene instruction, sham/standard of care)
- Outcome
- Caries (lesion) progression (radiographic)
Resin infiltration led to lower caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) compared with fluoride varnish, sham/placebo, or flossing advice (non-invasive…; GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Resin infiltration vs Fluoride varnish, sham/placebo, or flossing advice (non-invasive control) Caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) · Dentate children and adults with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions extending into enamel or dentine (not pulp) in… · 12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up), Resin infiltration Resin infiltration led to lower caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) compared with fluoride varnish, sham/placebo, or flossing advice (non-invasive…; GRADE not reported. Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth (2015) · Cochrane All outcomes | OR 0.19 [0.08, 0.46] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2014-12-31 | Not listed | Not assessed |
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.