| N=42 (23 female, 25 male), mean age 7.2 ± 0.6 years |
Resin infiltration followed by fluoride varnish FV (2.26% F) application (test group) |
Control only FV |
Caries experience, measured by the defs index |
Proximal |
1 year |
Caries lesion progression:
Visual caries assessment using ICDAS scoring system AND radiographic scores (in 78 lesions)
|
The lesion was considered to have progressed if the ICDAS or radiographic score increased. |
After 1 year, the ICDAS scores of 31% of the test lesions, and 67% of the control lesions had progressed (p<0.01).
Radiographically, 23% of the test lesions and 62% of the control lesions had progressed (p<0.01).
|
By radiographic (At first year)
0.32
[0.17-0.60]
|
By ICDAS Resin infiltration + FV vs. FV = 35.7%
By radiography Resin infiltration + FV vs. FV = 38.4%
|
By ICDAS PF Resin infiltration + FV vs. FV (control) = 0.67
By radiograph 0.62
|
| N=47, aged between 5 and 8 years old, mean=6.5 years |
Resin infiltration plus fluoride varnish (I+F) or sealing plus fluoride varnish (S+F) |
Control only FV |
Caries experience, measured by the def- s index |
Occlusal |
Up to 34 months after treatment (mean=22 months) |
Caries lesion progression:
Visual caries assessment using ICDAS scoring system AND radiographic scores (in 139 lesions)
|
The lesion was considered to have progressed if the ICDAS or radiographic score increased. |
Infiltration and sealing occlusal surfaces with initial caries lesions on the primary molar teeth showed high efficacy in arresting caries progression, significant for the I+F or borderline significant for the S+F compared with the F group. |
By radiographic
0.41 [0.19-0.90]
|
By ICDAS: it was not possible to be calculated (data missing)
By radiographic
Resin infiltration + FV vs. FV = 21.28%
Sealing +FV vs. FV (control) = 17.03%
|
By ICDAS: it was not possible to be calculated (data missing)
By radiograph
PF Resin infiltration + FV vs. FV (control) = 0.58
PF Sealing + FV vs. FV (control) = 0.47
|
|
In the first year - 85 patients, a mean age of 8.0 (range, 7–9)
In the second year - 69 patients, a mean age of 8.2 (range, 6–9)
|
Resin infiltration |
Control only FV |
Cariogram model |
Proximal |
2 year (Radiographic -12 and 24 months) |
Caries lesion progression:
Radiographic scores
|
The lesion was considered to have progressed if the ICDAS or radiographic score increased. |
Infiltration is more efficacious than fluoride varnish for controlling carious lesions progression in proximal lesions in primary molars, and most children find the treatment acceptable |
By radiographic At first year
0.45 [0.22-0.93]
On second years 0.52 [0.31-0.88]
|
By radiography Resin infiltration vs. FV = 1 Year
13%
2 Year Resin infiltration vs. FV = 20.8%
|
By radiograph
At first year PF Resin infiltration vs. FV = 0.55
In second year: PF Resin infiltration vs. FV = 0.50
|
| N=42 (23 female, 19 male), mean age 6.7 ± 1.3 |
Resin infiltration plus oral hygiene instruction (fluoride toothpaste and flossing) |
Control, oral hygiene instruction (fluoride toothpaste and flossing) |
Cariogram model |
Proximal |
1 year |
Caries lesion progression:
Radiographic scores (in 84 lesions)
|
The lesion was considered to have progressed if the radiographic score increased. |
Caries infiltration of proximal caries lesions in primary molars are significantly more efficacious than standard therapy alone (fluoride toothpaste + flossing) |
By radiographic
0.57 [0.27-1.22]
|
By radiographic
Resin infiltration + oral hygiene instruction vs. control = 21.4%
|
By radiograph
PF Resin infiltration + oral hygiene instruction vs. control = 0.64
|
| N=45, mean age 6.82 ± 1.09 |
Resin infiltration + FV |
Control only FV |
The study did not describe the method used |
Proximal |
2 years |
Caries lesion progression:
Radiographic scores (in 90 lesions)
|
The lesion was considered to have progressed if the radiographic score increased. |
Resin infiltration as an adjunct to standard-of-care preventive measures is significantly more effective radiographically in reducing the progression of non-adjacent, incipient, proximal enamel lesions in primary molars compared with standard-of-care preventive measures alone after 24 months. |
By radiographic at first year
0.46 [0.19-1.10]
On second year
0.56 [0.32-0.95]
|
By radiographic Resin infiltration vs. FV (at first year) = 17,07%
Resin infiltration vs. FV (on second years) = 32%
|
By radiograph
PF Resin infiltration vs. FV (at first year) = 0.53
PF Resin infiltration vs. FV (on second year) = 0.44
|
| N=50 (28 female, 22 male), mean age .27 ± 1.29 |
Resin infiltration + flossing |
Flossing |
Cariogram model |
Proximal |
2 years |
Caries lesion progression:
Radiographic scores (in 90 lesions)
|
The lesion was considered to have progressed if the radiographic score increased. |
The results indicate that resin infiltration was an efficacious method for controlling proximal caries lesions in primary molars. |
By radiographic (In second years)
0.44 [0.21-0.90]
|
By radiographic
Resin infiltration + flossing vs. flossing = 31.1%
|
By radiograph
PF Resin infiltration + flossing vs. flossing = 0.56
|
| N=24, mean age 6 ± 1.23 years |
Resin infiltration + Oral hygiene instruction + dietary recommendations |
Oral hygiene instruction + dietary recommendations |
Caries experience, measured by the dmft index |
Proximal |
2 years |
Caries lesion progression:
Radiographic scores (in 48 lesions)
|
The lesion was considered to have progressed if the radiographic score increased |
Infiltrating proximal lesions decreases radiographic caries progression in primary molars after a two-year follow-up period. |
By radiographic (In second years)
0.65 [0.43-0.98]
|
By radiographic
Resin infiltration + oral hygiene instruction + dietary recommendations vs. control = 25.1%
|
By radiograph
PF Resin infiltration + oral hygiene instruction dietary recommendations vs. control = 0.35
|
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
