Joachim Krois1, Gerd Göstemeyer1, Seif Reda1, Falk Schwendicke2. 1. Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. 2. Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: falk.schwendicke@charite.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Micro-invasive treatment (sealing, infiltration) seems more efficacious to arrest early (non-cavitated) proximal carious lesions than non-invasive treatment (NI). Uncertainty remains as to the efficacy of sealing versus infiltration and the robustness of the evidence. We aimed to review and synthesize this evidence using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) and to perform trial sequential analysis (TSA). SOURCES: Searching three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central) was complemented by hand searches and cross-referencing. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing micro-invasive strategies against each other, NI or placebo for managing proximal carious lesions were included. The primary outcome was radiographically assessed lesion progression. Pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses as well as TSA were used for synthesis. DATA: Thirteen split-mouth studies (486 participants, mean age 15 years) were included. Mean follow-up was 25 months (min/max 12/36 months). Firm evidence on the superior efficacy of sealing/infiltration over NI (OR; 95% CI: 0.25; 0.18-0.32) was reached. Firm evidence was also reached on the superior efficacy of sealing (OR; 95% CI: 0.29; 0.18-0.46, 7 studies) and infiltration (OR; 95% CI: 0.22; 0.15-0.33, 7 studies) over NI. One study compared infiltration versus sealing and found no significant difference (0.70; 0.34-1.47). Based on Bayesian NMA, infiltration was ranked first in 80% of the simulations (sealing 20%, NI 0%). The surface-under-the-cumulative-ranking (SUCRA) values were 0.90 for infiltration, 0.60 for sealing and 0.00 for NI. We did not detect significant inconsistency (p = 0.89, node-split). CONCLUSIONS: Sealing or infiltration are likely to be more efficacious for arresting early (non-cavitated) proximal lesions than NI. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Practitioners should strive to perform micro-invasive treatment instead of NI for early proximal lesions. The decision between sealing or infiltration should be guided by practical concerns beyond efficacy.
OBJECTIVES: Micro-invasive treatment (sealing, infiltration) seems more efficacious to arrest early (non-cavitated) proximal carious lesions than non-invasive treatment (NI). Uncertainty remains as to the efficacy of sealing versus infiltration and the robustness of the evidence. We aimed to review and synthesize this evidence using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) and to perform trial sequential analysis (TSA). SOURCES: Searching three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central) was complemented by hand searches and cross-referencing. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing micro-invasive strategies against each other, NI or placebo for managing proximal carious lesions were included. The primary outcome was radiographically assessed lesion progression. Pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses as well as TSA were used for synthesis. DATA: Thirteen split-mouth studies (486 participants, mean age 15 years) were included. Mean follow-up was 25 months (min/max 12/36 months). Firm evidence on the superior efficacy of sealing/infiltration over NI (OR; 95% CI: 0.25; 0.18-0.32) was reached. Firm evidence was also reached on the superior efficacy of sealing (OR; 95% CI: 0.29; 0.18-0.46, 7 studies) and infiltration (OR; 95% CI: 0.22; 0.15-0.33, 7 studies) over NI. One study compared infiltration versus sealing and found no significant difference (0.70; 0.34-1.47). Based on Bayesian NMA, infiltration was ranked first in 80% of the simulations (sealing 20%, NI 0%). The surface-under-the-cumulative-ranking (SUCRA) values were 0.90 for infiltration, 0.60 for sealing and 0.00 for NI. We did not detect significant inconsistency (p = 0.89, node-split). CONCLUSIONS: Sealing or infiltration are likely to be more efficacious for arresting early (non-cavitated) proximal lesions than NI. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Practitioners should strive to perform micro-invasive treatment instead of NI for early proximal lesions. The decision between sealing or infiltration should be guided by practical concerns beyond efficacy.