Author:
Splieth C.H.,Kanzow P.,Wiegand A.,Schmoeckel J.,Jablonski-Momeni A.
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
For an ORCA/EFCD consensus, this systematic review assessed the question “How to intervene in the caries process in proximal caries in adolescents and adults”.
Material and methods
Separating between the management of initial and cavitated proximal caries lesions, Medline via PubMed was searched regarding non-operative/non-invasive, minimally/micro-invasive and restorative treatment. First priority was systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials (RCTs), otherwise cohort studies. After extraction of data, the potential risk of bias was estimated depending on the study type, and the emerging evidence for conclusions was graded.
Results
Regarding non-invasive/non-operative care (NOC), no systematic reviews or RCTs were found. In cohort studies (n = 12) with a low level of evidence, NOC like biofilm management and fluoride was associated with a low proportion and slow speed of progression of initial proximal lesions. Minimally/micro-invasive (MI) treatments such as proximal sealants or resin infiltration (four systematic reviews/meta-analyses) were effective compared with a non-invasive/placebo control at a moderate level of evidence. Data on restorative treatment came with low evidence (5 systematic reviews, 13 RCTs); with the limitation of no direct comparative studies, sample size-weighted mean annual failure rates of class II restorations varied between 1.2 (bulk-fill composite) and 3.8% (ceramic). Based on one RCT, class II composite restorations may show a higher risk of failure compared with amalgam.
Conclusions
Proximal caries lesions can be managed successfully with non-operative, micro-invasive and restorative treatment according to lesion stage and caries activity.
Clinical relevance
Proximal caries treatment options like non-operative, micro-invasive and restorative care should be considered individually.
Funder
Universitätsmedizin Greifswald
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference64 articles.
1. Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E, Dahiya M, Bhandari B, Murray CJ, Marcenes W (2015) Global burden of untreated caries: a systematic review and metaregression. J Dent Res 94(5):650–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515573272
2. Kassebaum NJ, Smith AGC, Bernabé E, Fleming TD, Reynolds AE, Vos T, Murray CJL, Marcenes W, GBD 2015 Oral Health Collaborators (2017) Global, regional, and national prevalence, incidence, and disability-adjusted life years for oral conditions for 195 countries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. J Dent Res 96(4):380–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034517693566
3. Marcenes W, Kassebaum NJ, Bernabé E et al (2013) Global burden of oral conditions in 1990-2010: a systematic analysis. J Dent Res 92(7):592–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513490168
4. IDZ (2016) Fünfte Deutsche Mundgesundheitsstudie – DMS V, Köln
5. DPHEP (2018) National Dental Epidemiology Programme for England: oral health survey of five-year-old children 2017. Public Health England, London
Cited by
29 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献