SynthesisCaries research2026
Dental Practitioners' Thresholds for Restorative Intervention in Carious Lesions: A Survey-Based Systematic Review Update.
Synthesis in Caries research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Clinical Predictive Models for Dental Caries Using Artificial Intelligence: Methodological Considerations.Caries research · 2026Review
- Modifying Diagnostic Terminology May Promote Evidence-Based Care.Caries research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
<p>Introduction: Despite evidence supporting the clinical and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive dentistry (MID), its adoption by the dental profession has been slow. A systematic review in 2016 found the majority of dentists intervene invasively earlier than necessary. The aim was to update this review of the assessment of dental practitioners' thresholds for providing restorative treatment for carious lesions given changes in evidence, teaching, and guidelines since 2016. The primary outcome was dental practitioners' restorative thresholds (the extent of the lesion when they would decide to intervene restoratively). Secondary outcomes were changes over time, caries risk, regional differences, and primary/permanent dentition.
methodsThis updated review replicated the methodology for the initial review, following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO; CRD42023431906). Embase, MEDLINE (via PubMed), and Web of Science databases were searched (2016-2023) for observational studies reporting on dental clinicians' thresholds for restorative interventions in adults and children without language, time, or quality restrictions. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were carried out independently and in duplicate. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. No funding sought.
resultsOverall, 47 publications (30 from original publication and 17 from updated search) met the inclusion criteria and 65 datasets were included in the meta-analyses: 19 for occlusal lesions (16 pre-2016 and 3 post-2016; n = 11,946) and 46 for proximal lesions (38 pre-2016 and 8 post 2016; n = 20,428). The meta-analyses found that for occlusal lesions confined to enamel, there were fewer practitioners intervening invasively: 5% (95% confidence interval [CI]; 1-20%) post-2016, compared with 15% (95% CI; 9-23%) pre-2016. The opposite was found for proximal lesions with increased intervention levels, 27% (95% CI; 18-40%) for lesions confined to enamel post-2016, compared with 19% (95% CI; 12-29%) pre-2016, and for lesions extending up to the enamel-dentine junction 61% (95% CI; 36-81%) post-2016, compared with 39% (95% CI; 29-51%) pre-2016. There was variance between regions but too few studies to draw conclusions on individual regions.
conclusionThere was a suggestion of less invasive treatment of occlusal lesions over time; however, this was not evident for proximal lesions. </p>.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.