How to intervene in the caries process: proximal caries in adolescents and adults-a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations
• Main Authors: Splieth, C. H., Kanzow, Philipp, Wiegand, Annette, Schmoeckel, Julian, Jablonski-Momeni, Anahita
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: 2020
• Subjects: Caries; Micro-invasive; Minimally invasive; Non-operative; Proximal; Restoration; Orca
• Online Access: https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65636; https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/65701; https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/17319; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03201-y

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.