Microinvasive technique (proximal sealing) vs no intervention: Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression
In one trial including both primary and permanent teeth, proximal sealing reduced radiographic caries progression versus no intervention (OR 0.16; ungraded subgroup).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Microinvasive technique (proximal sealing) vs No intervention Radiographic progression of proximal caries lesions · Children with lesions in both primary and permanent teeth (ages 8-10) · 3.5 years, Multiple countries (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, USA, Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, Thailand); dental clinic/community settings, Both permanent and primary (Fig. 6, subgroup 2.1.3) In one trial including both primary and permanent teeth, proximal sealing reduced radiographic caries progression versus no intervention (OR 0.16; ungraded subgroup). Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth-… (2025) All outcomes | OR 0.16 [0.06, 0.44] | 1 study · 61 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth- systematic review and… 2025 All outcomes | May 2024 | 17 | Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.