SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2025
Which management strategy has the highest success rate for occlusoproximal caries lesions in primary molars? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimManaging occlusoproximal lesions remains a challenge for dental professionals. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the best strategy to treat occlusoproximal caries lesions in primary molars.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and ProQuest up to 7th February 2024. Randomized controlled trials comparing different management strategies for occlusoproximal caries lesions with at least 12 months of follow-up were included. Network meta-analyses were carried out considering the success rate of the treatments as the outcome. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, and the certainty of evidence with the GRADE tool.
resultsSeven studies were included, evaluating five treatment modalities: Hall Technique (HT), non-restorative cavity control (NRCC), conventional restorative treatment (CRT), silver diamine fluoride application (SDF), and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART). HT had the highest success rate (80.8%). There was no statistical difference between other strategies. Only two studies showed a low risk of bias; the others had a high risk, primarily due to selective reporting bias. DISCUSSION: The HT had the highest success rate at 80.8%, making it the most effective treatment for occlusoproximal caries in primary molars. However, no significant difference was found between other treatment strategies. The certainty of evidence is limited by the high risk of bias, particularly selective reporting bias. Future research should also consider factors like patient preference and cost-effectiveness to better assess treatments in a patient-centered context.
conclusionHT is the most effective option for managing occlusoproximal caries in primary molars in terms of success rate. However, the evidence is based on studies with a high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence ranges from very low to moderate. PROSPERO: CRD42021281085.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40437149What 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.