Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33037372›Full record

ArticleBritish dental journal2020

When to intervene in the caries process? A Delphi consensus statement.

Avijit Banerjee, Christian Splieth, Lorenzo Breschi, Margherita Fontana, Sebastian Paris, Michael Burrow, Felicity Crombie, Lyndie Foster Page, Patricia Gatón-Hernández, Rodrigo A Giacaman and 9 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British dental journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07330089 (Retention of Pits and Fissure Sealants on Non Carious vs Initial Carious Enamel Lesions in Posterior Teeth, a Non Randomized Clinical Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT07330089 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Retention of Pits and Fissure Sealants on Non Carious vs Initial Carious Enamel Lesions in Posterior Teeth, a Non Randomized Clinical Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorFoundation University IslamabadRan2025 to 2027Enrolled420ConditionsDental Enamel, Dental Enamel Hypomineralization, Dental Enamel Hypoplasia
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. What are children's perceptions of dental interventions? A qualitative systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Oral health of children in Aotearoa New Zealand-time for change.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2022
    Review
  20. Review
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

19 authors.

Avijit BanerjeeConservative & MI Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's Health Partners, King's College London, UK. avijit.banerjee@kcl.ac.uk.
Christian SpliethPreventive & Pediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Lorenzo BreschiDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, DIBINEM, University of Bologna-Alma Mater Studiorum, Bologna, Italy.
Margherita FontanaDepartment of Cariology, Restorative Sciences and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan; Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Sebastian ParisDepartment of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Michael BurrowFaculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Felicity CrombieMelbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Lyndie Foster PageDepartment of Oral Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Patricia Gatón-HernándezDepartment of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Spain and Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Rodrigo A GiacamanCariology Unit, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Talca, Talca, Chile.
Neeraj GugnaniDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, DAV (C) Dental College, Yamunanagar, Haryana, India.
Reinhard HickelDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany.
Rainer A JordanInstitute of German Dentists, Cologne, Germany.
Soraya LealDepartment of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasília, Brazil.
Edward LoFaculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Hervé TasseryFaculty of Dentistry, AMU University, Marseille, France.
William Murray ThomsonDepartment of Oral Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, New Zealand.
David J MantonMelbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Australia; Centrum van Tandheelkunde en Mondzorgkunde, Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen, A. Deusinglaan 1, 9700 AD, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
Falk SchwendickeDepartment of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives To define an expert Delphi consensus on when to intervene in the caries process and existing carious lesions.Methods Non-systematic literature synthesis, expert Delphi consensus process and expert panel conference.Results Lesion activity, cavitation and cleansability determine intervention thresholds. Inactive lesions do not require treatment (in some cases, restorations may be placed for form, function, aesthetics); active lesions do. Non-cavitated carious lesions should be managed non- or micro-invasively, as should most cavitated lesions which are cleansable. Cavitated lesions which are not cleansable usually require minimally invasive management. In specific circumstances, mixed interventions may be applicable. Occlusally, cavitated lesions confined to enamel/non-cavitated lesions extending radiographically into deep dentine may be exceptions. Proximally, cavitation is hard to assess tactile-visually. Most lesions extending radiographically into the middle/inner third of dentine are assumed to be cavitated. Those restricted to the enamel are not cavitated. For lesions extending radiographically into the outer third of dentine, cavitation is unlikely. These lesions should be managed as if they were non-cavitated unless otherwise indicated. Individual decisions should consider factors modifying these thresholds.Conclusions Comprehensive diagnosis is the basis for systematic decision-making on when to intervene in the caries process and existing lesions.

Indexed as

Dental CariesDentinDental Caries SusceptibilityEsthetics, DentalHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.