Seven-year Follow-up of Resin Infiltration Treatment on Noncavitated Proximal Caries

In vitro effect of resin infiltrant on resistance of sound enamel surfaces in permanent teeth to demineralization

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of resin infiltrant on resistance of sound permanent enamel surfaces to demineralization.

METHOD

Eighty healthy premolars were sectioned to obtain enamel blocks from the buccal surface. Specimens with baseline surface microhardness values of 320-370 were selected. The experimental group were treated with resin infiltrant, while the control group was not. Specimens from each group were artificially demineralized and the surface microhardness values were measured again. Confocal laser scanning microscopy was used to measure the depth of demineralization and detect the penetration ability of the resin infiltrant. The specimens were subjected to a simulated toothbrushing abrasion test. Scanning electron microscopy was used to observe changes in the surface morphology of specimens after each of these procedures.

RESULTS

No significant differences between the experimental and control groups were observed in the baseline microhardness values or in the experimental group after resin infiltration compared with the baseline conditions. After artificial demineralization, the microhardness value in the control group was significantly lower than that in the experimental group (266.0 (±34.5) compared with 304.0 (±13.0), P = 0.017). Confocal laser scanning microscopy results showed that the demineralization depth in the control group was significantly deeper than that in the experimental group (97.9 (±22.8) µm vs. 50.4 (±14.3) µm, P < 0.001), and that resin infiltrant completely penetrated the acid-etched demineralized area of the tooth enamel with a mean penetration depth of 31.6 (±9.0) µm. Scanning electron microscopy showed that the surface morphology was more uniform and smoother after simulated toothbrushing. The enamel surface structure was more severely destroyed in the control group after artificial demineralization compared with that of the experimental group.

CONCLUSION

Resin infiltrant can completely penetrate an acid-etched demineralized enamel area and improve resistance of sound enamel surfaces to demineralization. Our findings provide an experimental basis for preventive application of resin infiltrant to sound enamel surfaces to protect tooth enamel against demineralization.

Infiltration and sealing for managing non-cavitated proximal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Infiltration and sealing are micro-invasive treatments for arresting proximal non-cavitated caries lesions; however, their efficacies under different conditions remain unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the caries-arresting effectiveness of infiltration and sealing and to further analyse their efficacies across different dentition types and caries risk levels.

Methods

Six electronic databases were searched for published literature, and references were manually searched. Split-mouth randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness between infiltration/sealing and non-invasive treatments in proximal lesions were included. The primary outcome was obtained from radiographical readings.

Results

In total, 1033 citations were identified, and 17 RCTs (22 articles) were included. Infiltration and sealing reduced the odds of lesion progression (infiltration vs. non-invasive: OR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.15–0.30; sealing vs. placebo: OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.18–0.42). For both the primary and permanent dentitions, infiltration and sealing were more effective than non-invasive treatments (primary dentition: OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.20–0.45; permanent dentition: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). The overall effects of infiltration and sealing were significantly different from the control effects based on different caries risk levels (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.14–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), there were significant differences between micro-invasive and non-invasive treatments (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.10–0.29; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.07–0.28). Except for caries risk at moderate levels (moderate risk: OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.01–8.27), infiltration was superior (low risk: OR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.72; low to moderate risk: OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.81; moderate to high risk: OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.10–0.39; and high risk: OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.05–0.37).

Conclusion

Infiltration and sealing were more efficacious than non-invasive treatments for halting non-cavitated proximal lesions.