What do systematic reviews say?

Sealing using sealant materials vs Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Non-cavitated lesions, primary dentition
  Lesion progression reported narratively: Borges 2012a found 3/26 sealed lesions progressed after 1 year (split-mouth); not pooled and not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Hall technique vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than NRCC in primary teeth (Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Chemotherapy regimen A (+/- locoregional treatment) vs Chemotherapy regimen B (+/- locoregional treatment)

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Locoregional control reported in 12 studies; not pooled. Olasz 2000 RR 0.50 (0.26 to 0.96); Prevost 2005 RR 1.48 (1.04 to 2.11); Molinari 1982 RR 0.35 (0.19 to 0.66).
  12 studies
  GRADE not reported

Concomitant (concurrent) chemoradiotherapy vs Radiotherapy alone

Concomitant (concurrent) chemoradiotherapy probably leads to lower overall survival, concurrent chemoradiotherapy vs radiotherapy alone… compared with radiotherapy alone (non-resectable tumours) (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  HR 0.74 [0.67, 0.83]
  24 studies · 2852 participants
  Moderate

Sealing using sealant materials vs no treatment

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Non-cavitated lesions, permanent dentition
  Lesion progression reported narratively: da Silveira 2012 found 3/27 lesions progressed after 1 year; not pooled and not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Hall technique vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC)

It is very uncertain whether hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) changes failure of therapy compared with non-restorative cavity control (NRCC) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  30 months · Cavitated lesions, primary dentition
  OR 0.19 [0.05, 0.74]
  1 study · 84 participants
  Very low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC)

It is very uncertain whether non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) changes failure of therapy compared with non-restorative cavity control (NRCC) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  30 months · Cavitated lesions, primary dentition
  OR 1.16 [0.5, 2.71]
  1 study · 102 participants
  Very low

Sealing using sealant materials vs Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR)

It is very uncertain whether sealing using sealant materials changes failure of therapy compared with non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  48 months · Cavitated lesions, permanent dentition
  OR 5.0 [0.51, 49.27]
  1 study · 41 participants
  Very low

Sealing using sealant materials vs no treatment

It is very uncertain whether sealing using sealant materials changes failure of therapy compared with no treatment (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months · Non-cavitated lesions, permanent dentition
  OR 0.05 [0.0, 2.71]
  2 studies · 103 participants
  Very low

Glass ionomer sealant (with fluoride gel plus dentifrice) vs Fluoride gel plus fluoride toothpaste/dentifrice (non-invasive control)

Glass ionomer sealant (with fluoride gel plus dentifrice) showed no clear difference in caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) compared with fluoride gel plus fluoride toothpaste/dentifrice (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) · Glass ionomer sealant
  OR 0.13 [0.01, 2.52]
  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 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