Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chen, Yuanyuan; Chen, Dongru; Lin, Huancai.
Afiliación
  • Chen Y; Hospital of Stomatology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Chen D; Department of Preventive Dentistry, Hospital of Stomatology, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Lin H; Guangdong Key Laboratory for Dental Disease Prevention and Control, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
BMC Oral Health ; 21(1): 13, 2021 01 07.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33413327
BACKGROUND: Infiltration 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. METHODS: Six 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. RESULTS: In 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). CONCLUSION: Infiltration and sealing were more efficacious than non-invasive treatments for halting non-cavitated proximal lesions.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Selladores de Fosas y Fisuras / Caries Dental Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Oral Health Asunto de la revista: ODONTOLOGIA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Selladores de Fosas y Fisuras / Caries Dental Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMC Oral Health Asunto de la revista: ODONTOLOGIA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China