Non-Cochrane · prevalence · PM40349703
Dental Practitioners' Thresholds for Restorative Intervention in Carious Lesions: A Survey-Based Systematic Review Update.
Lundbeck Heather J, Pitchika Vinay, Wilson Paul, et al. · Caries research · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1159/000546194
Findings
37 findings
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Overall | Proportion 0.13 [0.08, 0.20] GRADE not reported 19 studies · 11946 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Western Europe | Proportion 0.16 [0.03, 0.52] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 2123 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Scandinavia | Proportion 0.09 [0.05, 0.14] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 4362 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Eastern Europe | Proportion 0.05 [0.00, 0.59] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 306 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Pre-2016 surveys | Proportion 0.15 [0.09, 0.23] GRADE not reported 16 studies · 10611 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Post-2016 surveys | Proportion 0.05 [0.01, 0.20] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 1335 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: North America | Proportion 0.22 [0.12, 0.36] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 3644 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel or extending to outer third of dentine (E1, E2, EDJ, D1) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Overall | Proportion 0.73 [0.57, 0.84] GRADE not reported 19 studies · 11946 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel or extending to outer third of dentine (E1, E2, EDJ, D1) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: North America | Proportion 0.78 [0.48, 0.93] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 3644 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel or extending to outer third of dentine (E1, E2, EDJ, D1) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Post-2016 surveys | Proportion 0.40 [0.22, 0.61] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 1335 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel or extending to outer third of dentine (E1, E2, EDJ, D1) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Western Europe | Proportion 0.77 [0.25, 0.97] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 2123 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel or extending to outer third of dentine (E1, E2, EDJ, D1) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Scandinavia | Proportion 0.79 [0.72, 0.84] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 4362 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel or extending to outer third of dentine (E1, E2, EDJ, D1) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Eastern Europe | Proportion 0.59 [0.09, 0.95] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 306 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel or extending to outer third of dentine (E1, E2, EDJ, D1) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Pre-2016 surveys | Proportion 0.78 [0.62, 0.88] GRADE not reported 16 studies · 10611 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Australasia | Proportion 0.09 [0.06, 0.13] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 1495 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Pre-2016 surveys | Proportion 0.19 [0.12, 0.29] GRADE not reported 38 studies · 17456 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Asia | Proportion 0.25 [0.09, 0.53] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 1586 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Latin/South America | Proportion 0.40 [0.14, 0.72] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 2127 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: North America | Proportion 0.30 [0.15, 0.50] GRADE not reported 9 studies · 5666 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Post-2016 surveys | Proportion 0.27 [0.18, 0.40] GRADE not reported 8 studies · 2972 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Western Europe | Proportion 0.21 [0.10, 0.38] GRADE not reported 10 studies · 3123 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Overall | Proportion 0.21 [0.14, 0.29] GRADE not reported 46 studies · 20428 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Eastern Europe | Proportion 0.37 [0.28, 0.47] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 1833 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel (E1, E2) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Scandinavia | Proportion 0.03 [0.00, 0.16] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 4598 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel or extending up to the enamel-dentine junction (E1, E2, EDJ) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Western Europe | Proportion 0.45 [0.31, 0.59] GRADE not reported 7 studies · 2844 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel or extending up to the enamel-dentine junction (E1, E2, EDJ) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Pre-2016 surveys | Proportion 0.39 [0.28, 0.51] GRADE not reported 26 studies · 13562 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel or extending up to the enamel-dentine junction (E1, E2, EDJ) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Latin/South America | Proportion 0.48 [0.24, 0.72] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 1604 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel or extending up to the enamel-dentine junction (E1, E2, EDJ) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Post-2016 surveys | Proportion 0.61 [0.36, 0.81] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 1515 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel or extending up to the enamel-dentine junction (E1, E2, EDJ) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: North America | Proportion 0.56 [0.35, 0.75] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 3531 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel or extending up to the enamel-dentine junction (E1, E2, EDJ) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Australasia | Proportion 0.42 [0.30, 0.55] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 1495 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel or extending up to the enamel-dentine junction (E1, E2, EDJ) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Eastern Europe | Proportion 0.58 [0.18, 0.90] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 635 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel or extending up to the enamel-dentine junction (E1, E2, EDJ) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Asia | Proportion 0.23 [0.04, 0.65] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 417 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel or extending up to the enamel-dentine junction (E1, E2, EDJ) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Overall | Proportion 0.42 [0.32, 0.53] GRADE not reported 30 studies · 15077 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) in surveys | Restorative intervention for proximal lesions confined to enamel or extending up to the enamel-dentine junction (E1, E2, EDJ) | Not applicable (single-proportion synthesis) | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Dental practice or dental school surveys; 22 countries, 7 regions · Region: Scandinavia | Proportion 0.24 [0.07, 0.60] GRADE not reported 5 studies · 4551 participants |
| Dental practitioners (dentists, therapists, dental students) | Restorative thresholds by patient age, gender and socioeconomic status | Not applicable | Practitioners' restorative thresholds Dental practitioner surveys | no estimate extracted No studies found 0 studies |
| Dental practitioners | Treating patients at high caries risk | Treating patients at low caries risk | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | no estimate extracted No studies found 0 studies |
| Dental practitioners | Primary dentition | Permanent dentition | Dental practitioners who would intervene restoratively (proportion) Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | no estimate extracted No studies found 0 studies |
Included primary studies 47
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al-Khatrash 2011 Factors affecting the detection and treatment of occlusal caries using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System. PMID:21859317 | 2011 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Baraba 2010 Survey of Croatian dentists' restorative treatment decisions on approximal caries lesions. PMID:21162163 | 2010 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Baraba 2012 Restorative treatment decisions of Croatian university teachers. PMID:23390824 | 2012 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Bervian 2009 Evaluation of final-year dental students concerning therapeutic decision making for proximal caries. PMID:19488473 | 2009 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Carvalho 2018 Diagnosis, Risk Assessment, and Treatment Decisions for Occlusal Caries: A Survey from the Danish Public Dental Health Service. PMID:29241221 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Chana 2019 Restorative intervention thresholds and treatment decisions of general dental practitioners in London. PMID:31654011 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Doméjean 2015 Changes in Occlusal Caries Lesion Management in France from 2002 to 2012: A Persistent Gap between Evidence and Clinical Practice. PMID:26112375 | 2015 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Doméjean-Orliaguet 2004 French dentists' restorative treatment decisions. PMID:15646946 | 2004 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Drachev 2021 Restorative treatment decisions for carious lesions: Do Russian dentists and dental students apply minimal intervention dentistry? PMID:34911518 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| El-Mowafy 1994 Restorative decision making by Ontario dentists. PMID:8037797 | 1994 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Espelid 1985 Variation in radiographic interpretation and restorative treatment decisions on approximal caries among dentists in Norway. PMID:3855730 | 1985 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Espelid 2001 Restorative treatment decisions on occlusal caries in Scandinavia. PMID:11318041 | 2001 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Fellows 2014 Dentist and practice characteristics associated with restorative treatment of enamel caries in permanent teeth: multiple-regression… PMID:25000667 | 2014 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Ghasemi 2008 Restorative treatment threshold reported by Iranian dentists. PMID:18839727 | 2008 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Gilbert 2013 Caries treatment in a dental practice-based research network: movement toward stated evidence-based treatment. PMID:23036131 | 2013 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Gomez 2014 Dentists' perspectives on caries-related treatment decisions. PMID:25055606 | 2014 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Gordan 2009 Restorative treatment thresholds for interproximal primary caries based on radiographic images: findings from the Dental Practice-Based… PMID:19906618 | 2009 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Hanes 1992 The influence of practice type, region, and age on treatment recommendations for primary teeth. PMID:1303523 | 1992 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Heaven 2013 Agreement among dentists' restorative treatment planning thresholds for primary occlusal caries, primary proximal caries, and existing… PMID:23743181 | 2013 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kakudate 2012 Restorative treatment thresholds for proximal caries in dental PBRN. PMID:23053847 | 2012 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kay 1992 Restorative treatment thresholds and agreement in treatment decision-making. PMID:1424545 | 1992 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kay 1996 Variations in restorative treatment decisions: an international comparison. PMID:9007352 | 1996 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Keys 2019 Carious lesion management in children and adolescents by Australian dentists. PMID:31325399 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Khalaf 2014 Restorative treatment thresholds: factors influencing the treatment thresholds and modalities of general dentists in Kuwait. PMID:24943861 | 2014 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kolumban 2022 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kopperud 2016 Occlusal Caries Management: Preferences among Dentists in Norway. PMID:26839953 | 2016 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Laske 2019 Minimally Invasive Intervention for Primary Caries Lesions: Are Dentists Implementing This Concept? PMID:30107377 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Leal 2019 Dental caries lesions in primary teeth without obvious cavitation: Treatment decision-making process. PMID:30803096 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Maupomé 1997 Radiographic criteria employed to diagnose and treat approximal caries by final-year dental students in Mexico City. PMID:9192155 | 1997 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Mejàre 1999 Caries assessment and restorative treatment thresholds reported by Swedish dentists. PMID:10480281 | 1999 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Mileman 1988 Decisions on restorative treatment and recall intervals based on bitewing radiographs. A comparison between national surveys of Dutch and… PMID:3196957 | 1988 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Moreno 2021 Overtreatment in Restorative Dentistry: Decision Making by Last-Year Dental Students. PMID:34886311 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Muller-Bolla 2021 Restorative thresholds for primary and permanent molars in children: French dentist decisions. PMID:33220074 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Nuttall 1990 Restorative treatment thresholds reported to be used by dentists in Scotland. PMID:2206665 | 1990 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Rechmann 2016 Approximal and occlusal carious lesions: Restorative treatment decisions by California dentists. PMID:26869312 | 2016 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Riley 2011 Differences in male and female dentists' practice patterns regarding diagnosis and treatment of dental caries: findings from The Dental… PMID:21454850 | 2011 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Riordan 1991 Radiographic interpretation and treatment decisions among dental therapists and dentists in Western Australia. PMID:1742991 | 1991 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Suliman 2020 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Swan 1993 Ontario dentists: 2. Bitewing utilization and restorative treatment decisions. PMID:8443704 | 1993 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tan 2002 Caries, bitewings, and treatment decisions. PMID:12139267 | 2002 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tellez 2011 Sealants and dental caries: dentists' perspectives on evidence-based recommendations. PMID:21881070 | 2011 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Traebert 2005 Brazilian dentists' restorative treatment decisions. PMID:15921338 | 2005 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Traebert 2007 Thresholds of restorative decision in dental caries treatment among dentists from small Brazilian cities. PMID:17722440 | 2007 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tubert-Jeannin 2004 Restorative treatment strategies reported by French university teachers. PMID:15466060 | 2004 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tveit 1999 Restorative treatment decisions on approximal caries in Norway. PMID:10858750 | 1999 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Vidnes-Kopperud 2011 Changes in the treatment concept for approximal caries from 1983 to 2009 in Norway. PMID:21412003 | 2011 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Zadik 2008 Clinical decision making in restorative dentistry, endodontics, and antibiotic prescription. PMID:18172239 | 2008 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Dentists, therapists, and dental or therapist students; adults and children; primary or permanent dentitions | Dental practitioners from 22 countries across 7 regions (occlusal n=11,946; proximal n=20,428) |
| Intervention | Restorative (invasive) intervention at a given carious lesion depth (occlusal or proximal; clinical or radiographic) | Restorative intervention for occlusal lesions confined to enamel or up to outer dentine (D1); proximal lesions confined to enamel or up to the EDJ |
| Comparison | Not applicable (single-group surveys; comparisons across time, region, caries risk, dentition) | Not applicable (pooled proportions; pre-2016 vs post-2016 subgroups) |
| Outcomes | Dental practitioners' restorative thresholds (proportion intervening restoratively at each lesion progression level) | Pooled proportion of practitioners intervening restoratively (65 data sets from 47 publications; I2 about 99%) |
| Study designs | Observational peer-reviewed cross-sectional surveys, no language, time or quality restrictions | 47 observational surveys (30 from original review, 17 new); 14 of 17 new studies meta-analyzed; 4 high, 34 moderate, 9 low quality (Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) |
| Timing | Not specified | Survey years 1985 to 2022 |