Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that resin infiltration significantly reduces the possibility of caries progression compared with the control «Liang Y, Deng Z, Dai X ym. Micro-invasive interven...»1, «Faghihian R, Shirani M, Tarrahi MJ ym. Efficacy of...»2. The resin infiltration technique is effective both in primary and permanent teeth «Liang Y, Deng Z, Dai X ym. Micro-invasive interven...»1, «Faghihian R, Shirani M, Tarrahi MJ ym. Efficacy of...»2, «Bagher SM, Hegazi FM, Finkelman M ym. Radiographic...»3. The quality of evidence is moderate.
Resin infiltration is effective in arresting the progression of non-cavitated proximal caries involved in enamel and enamel-dentin junction. When proximal caries involves dentin, the therapeutic efficacy of resin infiltration decreases «Liang Y, Deng Z, Dai X ym. Micro-invasive interven...»1. The quality of evidence is low.
No relevant side effects of the resin infiltration technique have been observed «Faghihian R, Shirani M, Tarrahi MJ ym. Efficacy of...»2.
Applicability of the evidence to the Finnish population is good.
Reference | Study type | Population | Intervention and comparison | Outcomes | Risk of bias «Additional comments for included studies»1 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
RCT = randomized controlled trial; SR = systematic review; MA = meta-analysis | |||||
«Liang Y, Deng Z, Dai X ym. Micro-invasive interven...»1 | SR/MA | Included studies were split-mouth randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Population: Children and adults with non-cavitated proximal caries, detected by radiographs. |
Resin infiltration compared to non-invasive measures (e.g. fluoride varnish), mock or placebo treatment | Caries progression assessed by radiographs | 2/4 studies unclear risk (deficiency of information for judging allocation concealment
(selection bias)) 1/4 studies high performance bias (no information on the blinding of participants and personnel) |
«Faghihian R, Shirani M, Tarrahi MJ ym. Efficacy of...»2 | SR/MA | Included studies were split-mouth randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Population: Children and adults, with non-cavitated proximal caries, detected by radiographs. |
Resin infiltration technique compared to non-invasive measures (e.g. placebo, fluoride therapy, and oral health instructions) | Caries progression assessed by radiographs | 4/8 studies unclear risk (deficiency of information for judging allocation concealment) 5/8 studies high risk of performance bias (dentists were aware of the intervention) 3/8 studies unclear risk of performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) 1/8 unclear risk of bias (incomplete outcome data) 1/8 high risk of other bias |
«Bagher SM, Hegazi FM, Finkelman M ym. Radiographic...»3 | RCT | Split-mouth RCT45 healthy 5 to 8 years old children from the pediatric dentistry clinic
at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, USA. Subjects had at least two non-adjacent, incipient proximal enamel carious lesions in primary molars. |
Resin infiltration compared to standard-of-care preventive measures (fluoride application, oral hygiene, and diet counselling) | Caries progression assessed by radiographs | The investigator who performed the treatment and the subjects were not blind with
respect to which group a lesion belonged. The examiners who evaluated the radiographs were blind regarding group. |
Results
Reference | Number of studies and number of carious lesions (I/C) | Follow-up time | Absolute number of events (%) I | Absolute number of events (%) C | Relative effect (OR) (95 % CI) / (RR) (95 % CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level of evidence: moderate Risk of bias is moderate The quality of evidence is downgraded due to limited number (8) of studies and participants. I = intervention; C = comparison; CI = confidence interval OR = Odds Ratio RR = Risk Ratio |
|||||
«Liang Y, Deng Z, Dai X ym. Micro-invasive interven...»1 | 4 studies 288 / 288 |
12-36 months | 32 (11.1 %) | 117 (40.6 %) | OR: 0.15 (0,09 to 0.24) |
«Faghihian R, Shirani M, Tarrahi MJ ym. Efficacy of...»2 | 8 studies 580/580 |
12-36 months | RR: 0.374 (0.291 to 0.480) |
Reference | Number of studies and number of patients (I/C) | Follow-up time | Absolute number of events (%) I | Absolute number of events (%) C | Relative effect (OR) (95 % CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level of evidence: low The quality of evidence is downgraded due to limited number (3) of studies and participants. I = intervention; C = comparison; CI = confidence interval OR = Odds Ratio |
|||||
«Liang Y, Deng Z, Dai X ym. Micro-invasive interven...»1 | 3 studies 249/249 |
18-36 months | Enamel: 0/116 Enamel-dentin junction 1/15 Dentin: 7/118 |
Enamel: 20/130 Enamel-dentin junction 7/14 Dentin: 14/105 |
Enamel: 0.05 (0.01-0.35) Enamel-dentin junction 0.07 (0.01-0.70) Dentin: 0.42 (0.16-1.10) |
Reference | Number of studies and number of carious lesions (I/C) | Follow-up time | Absolute number of events (%) I | Absolute number of events (%) C | Relative effect (RR) (95 % CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level of evidence: moderateThe quality of evidence is downgraded due to limited number
of studies and participants. I = intervention; C = comparison; CI = confidence interval RR = Risk Ratio |
|||||
«Liang Y, Deng Z, Dai X ym. Micro-invasive interven...»1 | 3 studies 249/249 |
12-36 months | 23 (9.24 %) | 93 (37.3 %) | RR 0.247 (0.162 to 0.377) |
«Faghihian R, Shirani M, Tarrahi MJ ym. Efficacy of...»2 | 4 studies 342/342 |
18-36 months | RR 0.307 (0.210 to 0.449) |
Reference | Number of studies and number of carious lesions (I/C) | Follow-up time | Absolute number of events (%) I | Absolute number of events (%) C | Relative effect (RR) (95 % CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level of evidence: moderateThe quality of evidence is downgraded due to limited number
(5) of studies and participants. I = intervention; C = comparison; CI = confidence interval RR = Risk Ratio |
|||||
«Faghihian R, Shirani M, Tarrahi MJ ym. Efficacy of...»2 | 4 studies238 / 238 | 8-34 months | RR: 0.434 (0.311 to 0.605) | ||
«Bagher SM, Hegazi FM, Finkelman M ym. Radiographic...»3 | 1 study45/45 | 24 | 10/25 (40 %) | 18/25 (72 %) | RR: 0.556(0.324 to 0.952) |