Abstract
BackgroundInfiltration and sealing are micro-invasive treatments for arresting proximal non-cavitated caries lesions; however, their efficacies under different conditions remain unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the caries-arresting effectiveness of infiltration and sealing and to further analyse their efficacies across different dentition types and caries risk levels.MethodsSix electronic databases were searched for published literature, and references were manually searched. Split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness between infiltration/sealing and non-invasive treatments in proximal lesions were included. The primary outcome was obtained from radiographical readings.ResultsIn total, 1033 citations were identified, and 17 RCTs (22 articles) were included. Infiltration and sealing reduced the odds of lesion progression (infiltration vs. non-invasive: OR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.15–0.30; sealing vs. placebo: OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.18–0.42). For both the primary and permanent dentitions, infiltration and sealing were more effective than non-invasive treatments (primary dentition: OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.20–0.45; permanent dentition: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). The overall effects of infiltration and sealing were significantly different from the control effects based on different caries risk levels (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), there were significant differences between micro-invasive and non-invasive treatments (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.10–0.29; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.07–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), infiltration was superior (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.10–0.39; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.05–0.37).ConclusionInfiltration and sealing were more efficacious than non-invasive treatments for halting non-cavitated proximal lesions.
Highlights
Dental caries is one of the most prevalent oral diseases worldwide [1]
22 articles of the 17 latest studies were included (Tables 1a, b and 2), of which 9 articles were related to 4 different series of studies and 1 article compared infiltration and sealing to the control group individually [23,24,25,26,27,28, 42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]
Non-cavitated proximal lesions were reduced when measures were undertaken in the primary dentition and permanent dentition
Summary
Dental caries is one of the most prevalent oral diseases worldwide [1]. In terms of the susceptibility of the tooth surface to cavitation, the proximal zones have a high risk of being carious [2]. Proximal caries lesions are prevalent but difficult to observe. Non-invasive or microinvasive treatments have been developed to replace traditional restorative treatments. These treatment protocols aim to restore the sound structure in a more preventive way, reduce associated pain and costs, and regain function and aesthetics [4,5,6,7]. Infiltration and sealing are micro-invasive treatments for arresting proximal non-cavitated caries lesions; their efficacies under different conditions remain unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the caries-arresting effectiveness of infiltration and sealing and to further analyse their efficacies across different dentition types and caries risk levels
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
