Micro-invasive x non-invasive |
Resin infiltration × proximal sealing × placebo |
Martignon et al.65, 2012/Colombia |
RCT/University clinic |
Non-cavitated proximal lesions |
Proportion of caries progression was 32% from the infiltrated, 41% from the sealed, and 70% from the placebo over 3 years follow-up. Infiltration and sealing were significantly more efficacious than placebo. No significant difference was observed between infiltration and sealing |
Careful selection of cases as well as periodical radiographic and clinical examination is encouraged |
Depend on availability of x-rays |
Resin infiltration + dental floss × dental floss |
Jorge et al.66, 2019/Brazil |
RCT/University clinic |
Non-cavitated proximal lesions |
Caries progression was observed in 24.1% of the test lesions compared with 55.2% of the control lesions (p = 0.012) over 24 months follow-up |
Data on the cost-effectiveness of resin infiltration in comparison with other treatment options are still scarce |
Resin infiltration × no infiltration |
Sarti et al.67, 2020/Brazil |
RCT/University clinic |
Non-cavitated proximal lesions |
Caries progression was observed in 54.1% of the test lesions compared with 79.2% of the control lesions (p = 0.03) |
|
Micro-invasive x restorative |
Resin sealant without carious tissue removal × SRFD + composite resin restoration |
Hesse et al.45, 2014/Brazil |
RCT/University clinic |
Occlusal cavitated dentine lesions on primary molars |
Both strategies had similar efficacy in terms of lesion arrestment (100%) over 18 months follow-up. Lower longevity of resin sealant due to partial or total loss over the studied period was reported |
Need of regular review visits for repairing/resealing the resin sealants restorations |
Resin sealant without carious tissue removal × NSRHD + composite resin restoration |
Alves et al.48, 2017/Brazil |
RCT/University clinic |
Occlusal cavitated dentine lesions on permanent posterior teeth |
Both strategies had similar efficacy in terms of lesion arrestment (94% for sealant and 100% for composite resin) over 3-4years follow-up |
Need of regular review visits for repairing/resealing the resin sealants restorations |
Success rate in terms of restoration longevity was lower for sealants (76%) than for composite resin (94%) |
Deposition of tertiary dentine deposition was found in both groups |
Flowable resin without carious tissue removal × SRFD + composite resin restoration |
Dias et al.46, 2018/Brazil |
RCT/University clinic |
Occlusal cavitated dentine lesions on primary molars |
Lesion progression over 24 months follow-up period and similar between flowable resin (3.7%) and SRFD (4.8%). Similar success rate in terms of restoration longevity was observed |
|
Minimally invasive x restorative |
ART (two types of GIC): Ketac-Molar × Vidrion |
Menezes et al.64, 2006/Brazil |
RCT/University clinic |
Single- and multiple surface cavitated dentine lesions on primary molars |
Ketac-Molar restorations involving 1 surface (occlusal) presented the best outcomes over 12-months follow-up |
|
ART (HV-GIC × RM-GIC) |
Cefaly et al.68, 2007/Brazil |
RCT/Suburban public schools |
Multiple surfaces cavitated dentine lesions on permanent molars |
Survival rate of both HV-GIC (93%) and RM-GIC (100%) were similar over 12-months follow-up |
|
Minimally invasive x restorative |
ART (HV-GIC × ZOE cement) |
Zanatta et al.69, 2011/Brazil |
RCT/ Public health centers |
Single- and multiple surfaces cavitated dentine lesions on posterior permanent molars |
The survival rate of single-surface (86.5%) was higher than multiple (57.6%) surfaces over 10 years follow-up. About 90.8% of ZOE cement restorations failed after 2 years |
|
ART (HV-GIC) × NSRHD (amalgam restoration) |
Mijan et al.22, 2014/Brazil |
RCT/Public primary schools |
Occlusal and occlusoproximal Cavitated dentine lesions on primary molars |
Cumulative survival rates (up to 90%) over 3.5 years follow-up was similar between NSRHD and ART |
|
ART (HV-GIC) × NSRHD (amalgam restoration) |
Hilgert et al.70, 2014/Brazil |
RCT/Public primary schools |
Single- and multiple surfaces cavitated dentine lesions on primary teeth |
Cumulative survival rate of amalgam restorations over 3 years follow-up for single and multiple surfaces (93.4% and 64.7%) were similar to HV-GIC (90.1% and 56.4%) |
|
ART (HV-GIC) × NSRHD (composite resin restoration) |
Molina et al.71, 2018/Argentina |
RCT/Special care service for patients with intellectual disability |
Cavitated dentine lesions on primary and/or permanent dentitions |
The cumulative success rate of all ART (94.8%) was higher than all resin composite restorations (82.3%) over 3-years follow up. For both treatments, cumulative success rate was higher for single surface restorations |
|
30% silver diamine fluoride × ART |
Vollú et al.72, 2019/Brazil |
RCT/University clinic |
Occlusal cavitated dentin lesions on primary molars |
Lesion was considered arrested in 89% of the SDF and 96% of the ART with no significant difference |
Shorter chair time and lower cost in favor of SDF |
ART (HV-GIC × low-cost GIC) |
Moura et al.51, 2020/Brazil |
RCT/Daycare centers |
Single- and multiple-surfaces cavitated dentine lesions on anterior or posterior primary teeth |
Restorations performed with HV-GIC were more successful over 12-months follow-up |
Success is directly related to the quality of the restorative material/Low-cost materials present bad survival |
ART (HV-GIC × two brands of low-cost GIC) |
Olegário et al.52, 2020/Brazil |
RCT/Public schools |
Occlusal cavitated dentine lesions on primary molars |
Survival rate of HV-GIC was higher (72.7%) than for the other low-cost GIC (46.5 and 39.6%) over 2 years follow-up |
Success is directly related to the quality of the restorative material/Low-cost materials present bad survival |
SRSD + restoration (composite resin) × NSRHD (composite resin restoration) |
Ribeiro et al.73, 1999/Brazil |
RCT/University based |
Occlusal and occlusoproximal cavitated dentine lesion on primary molars |
No restorative failures were found over 12 months of follow-up |
|
Minimally invasive x restorative |
SRFD (leathery) + restoration (composite resin) × NSRHD (composite resin restoration) |
Franzon et al.53, 2014, 2015/Brazil |
RCT/University clinic based |
Occlusal and occlusoproximal cavitated dentine lesion on primary molars |
Success rate (clinical and radiographic) for SRFD (92%) was similar to NSRHD (96%) over 2 years of follow-up |
Restorations placed after SRFD on primary teeth need to be followed over time |
More pulp exposure after NSRHD (27.5%) than after SRFD (2%) |
Lower operative time for SRFD |
Restoration survival for SRFD (66%) was lower compared with NSRHD (86%) |
Considering both pulp exposure and restoration failure as outcomes, no differences were found between SRFD (64%) and NSRHD (61%) |
SRFD (leathery) + restoration (composite resin or RM-GIC) × NSRHD + restoration (composite resin or RM-GIC) |
Casagrande et al.58, 2017/Brazil |
Retrospective/clinical records of University clinic |
Single- and multiple surface cavitated dentine lesions on young permanent molars |
The overall survival rate of restorations was 57.9% over 3-years |
|
Annual failure rate for SRFD (17.3%) and for NSRHD (13.1%) |
|
Longevity of restorations was similar for both treatments |
|
More pulp exposure was found after NSRHD; More failures for multiple-surface restorations and lower survival rates for RM-GIC than for composite resins; presence of gingival bleeding (≥20%) was a risk for restorative failure |
- |
SRSD + restoration (amalgam or composite resin) × SW + restoration (amalgam or composite resin) |
Maltz et al.56, 2012, 2013, 2018/Brazil; Jardim et al.59, 2020/Brazil |
Multicenter RCT/University and public health services |
Single- and multiple surface cavitated dentine lesions on permanent molars |
Success rate in terms of pulp vitality was higher for SRSD compared with SW over the following times: |
|
18 months: SRSD (99%) × SW (86%) |
|
3 years: SRSD (91%) × SW all treatments (69%) |
- |
5 years: SRSD (80%) × SW all treatments (56%) |
|
No pulp exposure was found after SRSD |
|
Authors reported that success of SW is highly dependent on completion of the treatment. Different success rates were observed between completed and uncompleted SW: |
|
3 years: 88% (complete); 13% (incomplete) |
|
5 years: 75% (complete); 5% (incomplete) |
|
Success rate in terms of restoration longevity was similar between SRSD (79%) and SW (76%) for all restorations over 5-years of follow-up. Similar success was found for amalgam (83%) and composite resins (75%) performed similarly irrespective to the treatment |
|
The time taken to perform SRSD was about 39% lower compared with SW |
|