Resin infiltration vs no treatment: Arrest or reversal of noncavitated approximal carious lesions
- Population
- Children and adults with noncavitated carious lesions on approximal surfaces (primary and permanent teeth)
- Intervention
- Resin infiltration
- Comparison
- no treatment
- Outcome
- Arrest or reversal of noncavitated approximal carious lesions
Resin infiltration may be more effective than no treatment for arrest or reversal of approximal carious lesions (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.13; low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Resin infiltration vs No treatment Arrest or reversal of noncavitated approximal carious lesions · Children and adults with noncavitated carious lesions on approximal surfaces (primary and permanent teeth) · 12-36 mo, Dental practice (professionally applied or prescribed nonrestorative caries treatments; parallel and split-mouth RCTs) Resin infiltration may be more effective than no treatment for arrest or reversal of approximal carious lesions (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.13; low certainty). Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. (2019) All outcomes | RR 2.11 [1.08, 4.13] | 6 studies · 565 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. 2019 All outcomes | June 2017 | 54 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Resin infiltration vs Resin infiltration + 5% NaF varnish · Children and adults with noncavitated carious lesions on approximal surfaces (primary… · 1 review
- Resin infiltration vs Sealant · Children and adults with noncavitated carious lesions on approximal surfaces (primary… · 1 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.