Comparison 1. Proximal sealing versus control/placebo.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Caries progression follow‐up 12 to 36 months ‐ DSR>Pairwise>Scoring	7	602	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.24 [0.14, 0.41]
1.1 Resin sealant versus control	3	330	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.26 [0.13, 0.53]
1.2 Resin infiltration versus control/placebo	2	130	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.15 [0.06, 0.39]
1.3 Glass ionomer sealant versus control	1	82	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.13 [0.01, 2.51]
1.4 Sealant patch versus control	1	60	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.0 [0.14, 7.22]
2 Caries progression follow‐up 12 to 30 months ‐ Scoring	5	468	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.27 [0.17, 0.44]
2.1 Resin sealant versus control	2	256	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.33 [0.18, 0.59]
2.2 Resin infiltration versus control/placebo	2	130	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.19 [0.08, 0.46]
2.3 Glass ionomer sealant versus control	1	82	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.13 [0.01, 2.52]
3 Caries progression follow‐up 18 to 36 months ‐ Pairwise	4	330	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.31 [0.18, 0.53]
3.1 Resin sealant versus control	2	218	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.31 [0.18, 0.54]
3.2 Resin infiltration versus placebo	1	52	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.08 [0.01, 0.63]
3.3 Sealant patch versus control	1	60	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.0 [0.14, 7.23]
4 Caries progression follow‐up 12 to 18 months ‐ Digital Substraction Radiography	3	270	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.18 [0.06, 0.50]
4.1 Resin sealant versus control	2	218	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.23 [0.07, 0.70]
4.2 Resin infiltration versus placebo	1	52	Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.05 [0.01, 0.45]