Relative DOR by reference standard (LFpen, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
No significant reference-standard difference for LFpen at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.96, 0.12 to 7.77).
1 finding from 1 review
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Fluorescence camera on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth (initial-lesion threshold): accuracy similar among the three methods (very low inconsistency); heterogeneity I2=0%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 6); accuracy similar among the three methods (very low inconsistency). Heterogeneity I2=0%. Numeric pooled values not…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 6); pooled DOR for FC among the higher values, exceeding LFpen. Heterogeneity I2=17%. Numeric pooled values not…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR lowest for LF among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=23%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 7); pooled DOR lowest for LF among the three methods. Heterogeneity I2=23%. Numeric pooled values not available in the…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 7); accuracy similar among LF, LFpen and FC. Heterogeneity I2=75%. Numeric pooled values not available in the provided…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) - not pooled · Permanent teeth (occlusal and smooth surfaces), with suspected caries lesions
Only 3 QLF studies were included, so no pooled estimate of QLF diagnostic accuracy could be calculated (evidence not graded).
1 finding from 1 review
Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) - not pooled · Permanent and primary teeth, smooth surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Only 2 LF studies assessed smooth surfaces, so no pooled estimate was possible; both reported higher specificity than sensitivity (evidence not graded).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Treatment failure (time-to-failure, 7 years)
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
1 study
GRADE not reported
Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Children with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions in primary teeth (ages 5-8)
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).
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events and periodontal/secondary outcomes (gingival bleeding, gingival bleeding index, visible plaque index) · Children and adults with non-cavitated proximal (interproximal) caries lesions in primary and/or permanent teeth (ages 3-45)
Only three trials reported secondary/adverse outcomes; no adverse events were attributed to microinvasive treatment and periodontal findings were mixed and not pooled (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Microinvasive interventions in the management of proximal caries lesions in primary and permanent teeth- systematic… 2025 All outcomesBaseline and follow-up · Multiple countries (Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, USA, Turkey, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, Chile, Thailand); dental clinic/community settings
Reported narratively by 3 trials (Arthur 2018, Sarti 2020, Jorge 2019). No adverse events were attributed to microinvasive treatment. Gingival bleeding index: no significant difference in Arthur 2018 and Jorge 2019 but…
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Children and adults with non-cavitated proximal (interproximal) caries lesions in primary and/or permanent teeth (ages 3-45)
Pooling 10 trials, resin infiltration reduced radiographic proximal caries progression versus non-invasive measures (OR 0.23); this subgroup was not separately GRADE-rated.
1 finding from 1 review
Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Children and adults with non-cavitated proximal (interproximal) caries lesions in primary and/or permanent teeth (ages 3-45)
No eligible studies compared microinvasive techniques with invasive (restorative) treatment; this planned comparison had zero included studies.
1 finding from 1 review
Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Children with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions in primary teeth (ages 3-9)
In primary teeth (5 trials), microinvasive techniques reduced radiographic proximal caries progression versus non-invasive measures (OR 0.38; ungraded subgroup).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Radiographic progression of proximal caries lesions
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Intervention not reported
Radiographic progression of proximal caries lesions
1 finding from 1 review
Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Children and adults with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions in permanent teeth (ages 11-45)
In permanent teeth (7 trials), microinvasive techniques reduced radiographic proximal caries progression versus non-invasive measures (OR 0.18; ungraded subgroup).
1 finding from 1 review
Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Children and adults with non-cavitated proximal (interproximal) caries lesions in primary and/or permanent teeth (ages 3-45)
Microinvasive techniques probably reduce radiographic progression of non-cavitated proximal caries lesions compared with non-invasive measures (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration survival · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
Multi-surface ART restorations had a reported survival rate of 73% at 1 year.
4 findings from 1 review
Survival rate 73
9 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival rate 95
9 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival rate 59
9 studies
GRADE not reported
Show 1 more finding
Survival rate 91
9 studies
GRADE not reported
Pulp exposure during caries removal · Children (3-11 years) with symptomless, vital dentine caries in primary molars
Stepwise excavation reduced the reported risk of pulp exposure by 69% versus complete caries removal (RR 0.31; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.31 [0.17, 0.57]
262 participants
GRADE not reported
Intervention not reported
Pain during treatment
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure · Children (2-9 years) with caries in posterior primary teeth
Single-surface ART restorations had a low reported mean annual failure rate (about 5%; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure · Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement
ART with GIC was reported to increase the odds of restoration failure versus conventional restoration (OR 1.60; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review