O tratamento da lesão de cárie dentária não cavitada é efetivo? Uma revisão sistemática

Abstract

Contemporary methods of diagnosing and treating caries advocate a distinction between cavitated and non-cavitated, active and inactive lesions and, when possible, minimally invasive interventions. The research question of this systematic review was: Is the treatment of non-cavitated caries lesions effective in preventing the appearance of dental cavity, restoration, toothache or tooth loss, in individuals with deciduous or permanent teeth?. A bibliographic search was carried out in the main databases until the year 2020. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. In cases where there was disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted and the dispute was resolved by consensus. Bias risk analysis was performed using the RoB2 tool and evidence certainty assessment using the GRADE system. A total of 4,108 titles were obtained, which after removing duplicate titles and applying the exclusion criteria, 19 studies were selected. No study presented the risk for the individual of developing at least one event related to the outcomes of interest, so it was not possible to perform a risk meta-analysis. Ten studies presented the results in terms of the average number of cavitated or restored dentin lesions per individual, allowing meta-analyses of differences in averages to be performed. Various combinations were made, as some studies had more than one intervention to be compared with placebo or oral hygiene. The results of the meta-analyses were similar, with the point estimate of the difference in the mean varying between -0.22 and -0.27 in the various meta-analyses performed. That is, on average, per individual, there were between 0.22 and 0.27 fewer teeth with dentin (or filled) carious cavity in the group that received treatment compared to the group that received the placebo or no treatment. The Higgins Index (I2) tells us the proportion of variability in effect estimates that can be attributed to heterogeneity across studies rather than chance. Based on this index, heterogeneity was substantial in all meta-analyses, ranging from 69% to 76%. Conclusion: no study has evaluated the effectiveness of non-invasive treatment of non-cavitated lesions (white spot) in preventing pain or tooth loss. Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of the treatment in preventing cavities or restorations. Among these few studies, treatment had a relatively modest effect. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally high or moderate and the certainty of evidence was low. Research on dental caries must include true outcomes so that it is possible to know the effectiveness of different early interventions in preventing dentin cavities, restorations, pain and tooth loss.