What do systematic reviews say?

Fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant vs Non-invasive measures (fluoride varnish; no intervention)

Pooling 2 trials, resin-based sealants reduced radiographic proximal caries progression versus non-invasive measures (OR 0.24; ungraded subgroup).

• Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth- systematic… 2025 All outcomes

  Final follow-up (1 to 3.5 years) · Multiple countries (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, USA, Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, Thailand); dental clinic/community settings · Sealant vs non-invasive (Fig. 5, subgroup 2.1.2)
  OR 0.24 [0.10, 0.55]
  2 studies · 111 participants
  GRADE not reported

Microinvasive technique (proximal sealing) vs no intervention

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- systematic… 2025 All outcomes

  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)
  OR 0.16 [0.06, 0.44]
  1 study · 61 participants
  GRADE not reported

Glass ionomer (modified glass ionomer varnish) vs Non-invasive measures (standard of care)

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- systematic… 2025 All outcomes

  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)
  OR 0.58 [0.28, 1.20]
  1 study · 53 participants
  GRADE not reported

Resin infiltration vs Non-invasive measures (fluoride varnish/toothpaste, flossing, oral hygiene instruction, sham/standard of care)

Pooling 10 trials, resin infiltration reduced radiographic proximal caries progression versus non-invasive measures (OR 0.23); this subgroup was not separately GRADE-rated.

• Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth- systematic… 2025 All outcomes

  Final follow-up (1 to 7 years across trials) · Multiple countries (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, USA, Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, Thailand); dental clinic/community settings · Resin infiltration vs non-invasive (Fig. 5, subgroup 2.1.1)
  OR 0.23 [0.15, 0.35]
  10 studies · 459 participants
  GRADE not reported

Microinvasive techniques (resin infiltration, resin/GIC sealant, or glass ionomer varnish) vs Conventional restoration

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- systematic… 2025 All outcomes

  Multiple countries (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, USA, Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, Thailand); dental clinic/community settings
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Microinvasive techniques (resin infiltration or glass ionomer varnish) vs Non-invasive measures (fluoride varnish/toothpaste, flossing, oral hygiene instruction, sham/standard of care)

In primary teeth (5 trials), microinvasive techniques reduced radiographic proximal caries progression versus non-invasive measures (OR 0.38; ungraded subgroup).

• Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth- systematic… 2025 All outcomes

  Final follow-up (1 to 2 years across trials) · Multiple countries (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, USA, Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, Thailand); dental clinic/community settings · Primary teeth (Fig. 6, subgroup 2.1.2)
  OR 0.38 [0.25, 0.57]
  5 studies · 266 participants
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

• Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth- systematic… 2025 All outcomes

  Caries depth: lesions up to DEJ (favored microinvasive; narrative, no numeric estimate)
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

• Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth- systematic… 2025 All outcomes

  Caries depth: lesions extending beyond DEJ (favored microinvasive; narrative, no numeric estimate)
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  GRADE not reported

Microinvasive techniques (mostly resin infiltration; incl. resin sealant) vs Non-invasive measures (fluoride varnish/toothpaste, flossing, oral hygiene instruction, sham/standard of care)

In permanent teeth (7 trials), microinvasive techniques reduced radiographic proximal caries progression versus non-invasive measures (OR 0.18; ungraded subgroup).

• Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth- systematic… 2025 All outcomes

  Final follow-up (1 to 7 years across trials) · Multiple countries (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, USA, Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, Thailand); dental clinic/community settings · Permanent teeth (Fig. 6, subgroup 2.1.1)
  OR 0.18 [0.10, 0.32]
  7 studies · 296 participants
  GRADE not reported

Microinvasive techniques (resin infiltration, resin/GIC sealant, or glass ionomer varnish) vs Non-invasive measures (fluoride varnish/toothpaste, flossing, oral hygiene instruction, sham/standard of care)

Microinvasive techniques probably reduce radiographic progression of non-cavitated proximal caries lesions compared with non-invasive measures (moderate certainty).

• Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth- systematic… 2025 All outcomes

  Final follow-up (1 to 7 years across trials) · Multiple countries (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, USA, Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, Thailand); dental clinic/community settings · Overall (all microinvasive vs non-invasive pooled)
  OR 0.27 [0.19, 0.38]
  13 studies · 623 participants
  Moderate