Comparison of therapies of white spot lesions: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveWhite spot lesions (WSLs), the earliest evidence of enamel demineralization, are considered amenable to intervention to achieve a remineralized or arrested state of caries. The management of WSLs is quite challenging, and there is no definitive cure as yet. We performed a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of seven therapies for WSLs and gave a hierarchy of them.Materials and methodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases (last search: July 2022) to identify all relevant studies. We limited our search to studies published in English. Randomized controlled designed in vitro/clinical trials related to the efficacy of the seven therapies for WSLs were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias (ROB) 2.0 tool from Cochrane and a previous in vitro methodological tool will be used for the quality assessment. Variations in quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), laser fluorescence (LF), and lesions area were the primary outcome measures. Standard mean difference (SMD) was used as the effect size for the Network meta-analysis (NMA). Consistency and inconsistency tests were conducted. The hierarchy of 7 treatment effects was evaluated using surface probabilities under cumulative ranking (SUCRA). Publication bias was evaluated using a bias plot.ResultsForty-two articles were included in the systematic review. Thirty-one of them, with a total of 1906 participants, were included in the network meta-analysis. The studies owned a low and moderate risk of bias. This analysis does not suffer from significant inconsistency. The difference between 4 groups ‘self-assembled peptide (SAP) P11-4’, ‘P11-4 + Fluoride Varnish (FV)’, ‘Resin Infiltration (RI)’, ‘casein phosphor peptides-amorphous calcium fluoride phosphate (CPP-ACFP)’ and the 'Control' group was found to be statistically significant. Compared to the ‘FV’ and ‘casein phosphor peptides-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP)’ groups, the ‘P11-4 + FV” group and ‘RI” group made a significant difference. The hierarchy was evident in the SUCRA values of 7 therapies. P11-4 + FV and RI were considered effective therapies compared to the control group or the FV group (gold standard group).ConclusionsThe available evidence suggests that resin infiltration and P11-4 in combination with fluoride varnish had advantages over gold standard (FV). The effect of tricalcium phosphate-based drugs and fluoride is not very noticeable. Overall, drugs based on P11-4 and resin infiltration will be better therapies. Using more than two drugs in combination also would increase efficacy.