Question · asked by 1 review
Glass ionomer (modified glass ionomer varnish) vs Non-invasive measures (standard of care): Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression
- Population
- Children with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions in primary teeth (ages 5-8)
- Intervention
- Glass ionomer (modified glass ionomer varnish)
- Comparison
- Non-invasive measures (standard of care)
- Outcome
- Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression
In one trial, glass ionomer varnish showed no statistically significant difference versus non-invasive care in radiographic proximal caries progression (OR 0.58, CI includes 1; ungraded subgroup).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Glass ionomer (modified glass ionomer varnish) vs Non-invasive measures (standard of care) Radiographic progression of proximal caries lesions · Children with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions in primary teeth (ages 5-8) · 1 year, Multiple countries (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, USA, Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, Thailand); dental clinic/community settings, Glass ionomer vs non-invasive (Fig. 5, subgroup 2.1.3) In one trial, glass ionomer varnish showed no statistically significant difference versus non-invasive care in radiographic proximal caries progression (OR 0.58, CI includes 1; ungraded subgroup). Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth-… (2025) All outcomes | OR 0.58 [0.28, 1.20] | 1 study · 53 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 |
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.