Summary of findings 3. Sealing compared to no treatment for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions.
| Sealing compared to no treatment for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions | ||||||
|
Population: treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, permanent dentition Setting: secondary care/university Intervention: sealing Comparison: no treatment | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with no treatment | Risk with sealing | |||||
| Failure of therapy Follow‐up 12 months | 700 per 1000 | 104 per 1000 (0 to 863) | OR 0.05 (0.00 to 2.71) | 103 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa | The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sealing compared to no treatment. |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
aDowngraded three levels for high risk of bias (blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting), inconsistency (I2 = 89%) and imprecision (low number of events, small sample size and wide confidence intervals).