Treating Pit-and-Fissure Caries: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. (April 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schwendicke, F.; Jäger, A.M.; Paris, S.; Hsu, L.Y.; Tu, Y.K.
• Is Part Of: Journal of dental research. Volume 94:Number 4(2015:Apr.)
• Page Start: 522
• Page End: 533
• Publication Date: 2015-04
• Subjects: dental -- enamel -- dentin -- fluoride -- Monte Carlo method -- dental restoration failure; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Social aspects -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Research -- Periodicals; 617.6005
• DOI: 10.1177/0022034515571184
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-0345

Abstract

For shallow or moderately deep pit-and-fissure lesions, various treatment options are available: (1) noninvasive treatments (e.g., fluoride application, antibacterial treatments, oral hygiene advice) avoid any dental hard tissue removal; (2) microinvasive treatments (e.g., sealing) remove only a few micrometers of hard tissues by etching; and minimally invasive methods (e.g., "preventive" resin/sealant restoration) remove carious dentin but avoid sacrificing sound tissues. We aimed at systematically reviewing and comparing these strategies for treating pit-and-fissure lesions in permanent teeth using network meta-analysis. Randomized or nonrandomized clinical trials investigating shallow or moderately deep primary caries lesions in fissured or pitted surfaces were included. We compared the risk of requiring invasive treatments or any retreatments in noninvasive, microinvasive, and minimally invasive treated lesions; untreated lesions were used as controls. Five electronic databases were systematically screened up to September 2013 and cross-referencing performed. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Certainty of estimates was evaluated via GRADE criteria. From a total of 2, 214 identified records, 14 studies representing 1, 440 patients with 3, 551 treated lesions were included. Pairwise meta-analysis found microinvasive and minimally invasive treated lesions to require less invasive retreatments than control lesions (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals]: 0.13 [0.07 to 0.26], 0.13 [0.03 to 0.50], respectively), whereas the estimate for noninvasively treated lesions remained nonsignificant (0.64 [0.39 to 1.06]). These findings were reflected in the strategy ranking stemming from network meta-analysis (first, minimally invasive; second, microinvasive; third, noninvasive). However, microinvasive treatment required significantly more total retreatments (including resealing) than minimally or noninvasive treatments. Due to limited study quality, the evidence was graded as low or very low. Clinical treatment decisions should consider the long-term sequelae and costs stemming from different therapies as well as their subjective impact on the patient. Available treatment options seem suitable for treating shallow or moderately deep pit-and-fissure lesions in permanent teeth; further conclusions are not possible.