What do systematic reviews say?

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the studies reported on participant or operator perception
  0 studies
  No studies found

Adhesive/polyurethane sealant patch vs No treatment (both arms received flossing plus fluoride toothpaste)

Adhesive/polyurethane sealant patch showed no clear difference in caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) compared with no treatment (both arms received flossing plus fluoride toothpaste); GRADE not reported.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up) · Sealant patch
  OR 1.00 [0.14, 7.23]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the studies reported on costs for micro-invasive treatment or non-invasive control
  0 studies
  No studies found

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration):… probably leads to lower caries (lesion) progression measured by pairwise reading of… compared with non-invasive measures (e.g. fluoride varnish, flossing/oral hygiene… (moderate certainty).

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  18 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.31 [0.18, 0.53]
  4 studies
  Moderate
• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.24 [0.14, 0.41]
  7 studies · 365 participants
  Moderate
• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 18 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.18 [0.06, 0.50]
  3 studies
  Moderate

Resin sealant (one micro-invasive treatment) vs Resin infiltration alone

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 3 years
  Only one study (Martignon 2012) directly compared resin sealant versus resin infiltration; the review could not determine which technique is more advantageous and reported no direct effect estimate for this comparison.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 to 3 years
  The four studies that measured adverse events reported no adverse events after micro-invasive treatment (no events in either arm)
  4 studies
  GRADE not reported

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on caries measured as change in decayed, missing and filled (DMF/dmf) figures at surface, tooth or whole mouth level
  0 studies
  No studies found

Resin sealant (with or without flossing advice) vs Flossing advice (non-invasive control)

Resin sealant (with or without flossing advice) led to lower caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) compared with flossing advice (non-invasive control); GRADE not reported.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up) · Resin sealant
  OR 0.33 [0.18, 0.59]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration) vs Conventional invasive treatment (restoration / drill and fill)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies compared micro-invasive treatments with invasive treatment (fillings)
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

Resin infiltration led to lower caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) compared with fluoride varnish, sham/placebo, or flossing advice (non-invasive…; GRADE not reported.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up) · Resin infiltration
  OR 0.19 [0.08, 0.46]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 years
  One study (Alkilzy 2011, sealant patch) reported material deficiency: 10% total and 23% partial loss of proximal sealants after three years; 53% maintained perfect margins and none had open margins. No studies reported…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and… showed no clear difference in plaque indices (permanent and deciduous teeth) compared with no intervention or delayed intervention (non-intervention control;… (low certainty).

• Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 to 15 months
  SoF (Plaque indices, follow-up 3 to 15 months): 'All 3 RCTs showed a reduction in plaque in the intervention group compared to control group'; 827 participants (3 RCTs); GRADE low; comment 'Data not suitable for…
  3 studies · 827 participants
  Low

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

• Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15 months
  PF 0.65 [0.12, 1.18]
  1 study · 60 participants
  Low

A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the restorative care of amelogenesis imperfecta in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Main results: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Effects of interventions: No studies met the inclusion criteria.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

• Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Worthington 2001 reported changes in oral health knowledge and skills: improvement was apparent in both intervention and control groups at the 4-month follow-up (phase one) but greater in the intervention group (34%…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the restorative care of amelogenesis imperfecta in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Main results: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Effects of interventions: No studies met the inclusion criteria.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

• Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Worthington 2001 found no change in reported dental visits over the course of the programmes, with 97% of children at baseline reporting visiting the dentist every 2 years.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No other behavioural outcomes (e.g. objective toothbrush tracking or food-wrapper collection) were measured by the four included studies.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No study reported any adverse events.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

• Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years
  PF 0.49
  1 study
  GRADE not reported