Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32306093›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2020

How to intervene in the caries process: proximal caries in adolescents and adults-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

C H Splieth, P Kanzow, A Wiegand, J Schmoeckel, A Jablonski-Momeni

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

C H SpliethClinic for Preventive and Paediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Fleischmannstr. 42, 17475, Greifswald, Germany. splieth@med.uni-greifswald.de.
P KanzowDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
A WiegandDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
J SchmoeckelClinic for Preventive and Paediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Fleischmannstr. 42, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
A Jablonski-MomeniDepartment of Orthodontics, Dental School, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesFor an ORCA/EFCD consensus, this systematic review assessed the question "How to intervene in the caries process in proximal caries in adolescents and adults". MATERIAL AND

methodsSeparating between the management of initial and cavitated proximal caries lesions, Medline via PubMed was searched regarding non-operative/non-invasive, minimally/micro-invasive and restorative treatment. First priority was systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials (RCTs), otherwise cohort studies. After extraction of data, the potential risk of bias was estimated depending on the study type, and the emerging evidence for conclusions was graded.

resultsRegarding non-invasive/non-operative care (NOC), no systematic reviews or RCTs were found. In cohort studies (n = 12) with a low level of evidence, NOC like biofilm management and fluoride was associated with a low proportion and slow speed of progression of initial proximal lesions. Minimally/micro-invasive (MI) treatments such as proximal sealants or resin infiltration (four systematic reviews/meta-analyses) were effective compared with a non-invasive/placebo control at a moderate level of evidence. Data on restorative treatment came with low evidence (5 systematic reviews, 13 RCTs); with the limitation of no direct comparative studies, sample size-weighted mean annual failure rates of class II restorations varied between 1.2 (bulk-fill composite) and 3.8% (ceramic). Based on one RCT, class II composite restorations may show a higher risk of failure compared with amalgam.

conclusionsProximal caries lesions can be managed successfully with non-operative, micro-invasive and restorative treatment according to lesion stage and caries activity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Proximal caries treatment options like non-operative, micro-invasive and restorative care should be considered individually.

Indexed as

Dental CariesAdolescentAdultBiofilmsConsensusDental MaterialsDental Restoration, PermanentFluoridesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDental MaterialsFluoridesCariesMicro-invasiveMinimally invasiveNon-operativeProximalRestoration

Identifiers

PMID32306093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.