Table 1.

Included studies on treatment of molars

Study Country	Study design	Severity of MIH	Follow-up in months (range)	Age of participants in years	No. of participants (drop outs)	No. of teeth (drop outs)	Primary outcome measure	Intervention	Success
Fissure sealants
Kotsanos et al. (2005a, b) Greece	Restrospective case–control	Mild & Severe	Mean 54	Mean 7.7	NR	35 restorations	Number of re-treatments needed	Fissure sealant (FS)	77.1% did not need retreatment
Lygidakis et al. (2009) Greece	Randomised trial	Mild	48	Mean 6.8 SD ± 0.4 Range 6–7	54 (7)	108	Success of fissure sealant	G1: resin-based FS applied with adhesive G2: resin-based FS applied without adhesive	G1: 70.2% fully sealed, 29.7% partially sealed and 0% lost G2: 25.5% fully sealed, 44.6% partially sealed and 29.7% lost
Fragelli et al. (2017) Brazil	Prospective cohort	Mild	18	Mean 7 Range 6–8	21 (0)	41	Success of restoration using USPHS-modified criteria	Resin-based FS G1: teeth affected by MIH G2: teeth unaffected by MIH	G1: 72.0% G2: 62.6% No difference between groups
Glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations
Mejare et al. (2005) Sweden	Restrospective cohort	Mild & Severe	NR	At referral: Mean 8.5 SD ± 2.16 Range 6–17 At follow-up: Mean 18.2	NR	63 restorations	Success of restoration	GIC restoration	49.2% acceptable
Fragelli et al. (2015) Brazil	Prospective cohort	Severe	12	Mean 7.7 Range 6.37–9.54	21 (0)	48	Success of restoration using USPHS-modified criteria	Non-invasive GIC restoration	78% cumulative survival
Grossi et al. (2018) Brazil	Prospective cohort	Severe	12	Mean 10.55 SD ± 1.25 Range 7–13	44 (1 incisor)	60 (6 restorations)	Success of restorations measured using modified ART criterion	Glass hybrid restoration using ART technique	98% cumulative survival
Durmus et al. (2020) Turkey	Prospective cohort	Severe	24	Mean 8.94 SD ± 1.41	58 (0)	134	Success of restoration using USPHS-modified criteria	Invasive high-viscocity GIC restoration	87.5% cumulative survival
Linner et al. (2020) Germany	Retrospective cohort	Severe	Mean 42.9	Mean 11.2 SD ± 2.9 Range 6.6–18.2	NR	28	Success of restoration using FDI criteria	Non-invasive GIC restoration	7.0% cumulative survival at 36 months
Polyacid modified resin composite restorations
Mejare et al. (2005) Sweden	Retrospective cohort	Mild & Severe	NR	At referral: Mean 8.5 SD ± 2.16 Range 6–17 At follow-up: Mean 18.2	NR	14 restorations	Success of restoration	Polyacid modified resin composite restoration	64.3% acceptable
Composite Resin Restorations
Lygidakis et al. (2003) Greece		Severe	48	Mean 8.84 SD ± 0.75 Range 8–10	46	52 (3 restorations)	Survival of restoration, hypersensitivity score using Cvar Ryge criteria	Composite resin restoration	100% survival and 100% non-sensitive
Kotsanos et al. (2005a, b) Greece	Retrospective case–control	Mild & Severe	Mean 54	Mean 7.7	NR	59 restorations	Number of re-treatments needed	Composite resin restoration	74.6% did not need retreatment Overall retreatment higher than control OREST = 3.10
Mejare et al. (2005) Sweden	Retrospective cohort	Mild & Severe	NR	At referral: Mean 8.5 SD ± 2.16 Range 6–17 At follow-up: Mean 18.2	NR	34 restorations	Success of restoration	Composite resin restoration	85.3% acceptable
de Souza et al. (2017) Brazil	Randomised trial	Severe	18	Mean 7 Range 6–8	18 (0)	41	Success of restoration using USPHS-modified criteria	Selective-etch adhesive (SEA) or total etch adhesive (TEA) composite resin restoration	SEA 68%, TEA 54% cumulative survival
Sonmez and Saat (2017) Turkey	Randomised trial	Severe	24	Mean 8.8 Range 8–12	30 (0)	95	Success of restoration using USPHS-modified criteria	Composite resin restoration G1: Invasive cavity preparation G2: Non-invasive cavity preparation G3: Non-invasive cavity preparation + pretreatment with 5% sodium hypochlorite G4: control, unaffected by MIH	Retention rate: G1: 93.7% G2: 80.7% G3: 93.5% G4: 100% No difference in success rates between G1, G3, and G4. Success rate group 2 significantly lower than other 3 groups
Gatón-Hernandéz et al. (2020) Spain	Prospective cohort	Severe	24	Mean 7.33 Range 6–8	326 (45)	326	Success of restoration, evidence of radiographic apexogenesis, absence of pulpal pathology	Selective caries removal and placement of GIC restoration. Replacement wtith composite resin restoration at 6 months	96.8% clinical and radiographic success
Linner et al. (2020) Germany	Retrospective cohort	Severe	Mean 42.9	Mean 11.2 SD ± 2.9 Range 6.6–18. 2	NR	126 27	Success of restoration using FDI criteria	Non-invasive composite resin restoration Conventional composite resin restoration	29.9% cumulative survival at 36 months 76.2% cumulative survival at 36 months
Rolim et al. (2020) Brazil	Randomised trial	Severe	12	Mean 10 Range 7–16	35	64 (14 teeth)	Success of restoration using USPHS-modified criteria	Bulk-fill composite resin restoration GI: TEA G2: SEA	G1: 80.8%, G2: 62.3% cumulative survival, no difference between groups
Amalgam restorations
Kotsanos et al. (2005a, b) Greece	Retrospective case–control	Mild & Severe	Mean 54	Mean 7.7	NR	18 restorations	Number of re-treatments needed	Amalgam restoration	38.9% did not need retreatment Overall retreatment higher than control OREST = 3.10
Mejare et al. (2005) Sweden	Retrospective cohort	Mild & Severe	NR	At referral: Mean 8.5 SD ± 2.16 Range 6–17 At follow-up: Mean 18.2	NR	32 restorations	Success of restoration	Amalgam restoration	78.1% acceptable
Preformed Metal Crowns (PMC)
Kotsanos et al. (2005a, b) Greece	Retrospective case–control	Mild & Severe	Mean 54	Mean 7.7	NR	24 restorations	Number of re-treatments needed	Placement of PMC	100% did not need retreatment Overall retreatment higher than control OREST = 3.10
Koleventi et al. (2018) Greece	Prospective cohort	Severe	6	Mean 10.6 SD ± 4.2	14 (0)	14	Multiple periodontal and microbiological outcome measures	Placement of PMC	100% survival. Increase in gingival index, periodontal depth, P. Gingivalis and T. Forsythia counts when compared with untreated teeth
Oh et al. (2020) South Korea	Retrospective cohort	Severe	44.3 mean (12–118)	Mean 9.27 Range 6–14 *mixed data	NR	50	Success of restoration	Placement of PMC	86% survival
Laboratory manufactured restorations
Gaardmand et al. (2013) Denmark	Prospective cohort	Severe	38.5 mean	Mean 12 Range 8–18	33	57 (4 restorations)	Success of restoration	Cast adhesive gold coping	98.2% functioning at mean 38.6 months
Dhareula et al. (2018) India	Case series	Severe	34.8 mean, (30–36)	Mean 11.4 Range 8–14	10	10	Success of restoration using USPHS criteria	Indirect composite resin onlay	100% survival
Dhareula et al. (2019) India	Randomised trial	Severe	36	Mean 10.2 Range 8–13	30	42 (5 restorations)	Success of restoration, radiographics outcomes, Shiff's sensitivity status, gingival health (Loe and Sillness GI)	G1: minimally invasive cast metal onlay G2: indirect resin onlay	G1: 85% G2: 100% No difference between groups
Linner et al. (2020) Germany	Retrospective cohort	Severe	Mean 42.9	Mean 11.2 SD ± 2.9 Range 6.6–18.2	NR	23	Success of restorations using FDI criteria	CAD-CAM fabricated ceramic restoration	100% cumulative survival at 36 months
Extractions
Mejare et al. (2005) Sweden	Retrospective cohort	Mild & Severe	NR	At referral: Mean 8.5 SD ± 2.16 Range 6–17 At follow-up: Mean 18.2	NR	76	Space closure	Extraction of FPM (between 1–4)	87% acceptable space closure
Jalevik and Moller (2007) Sweden	Prospective cohort	Severe	Median 68.4 (45.6–99.6)	Median 8.2 Range 5.6–12.7	33 (6)	77	Need for further orthodontic treatment	Extraction of FPM (between 1–4)	45% favourable development of dentition without need for orthodontic intervention
Oliver et al. (2014) Spain	Retrospective case series	Severe	Mean 44.4 (10–120 months) *mixed data	Mean 10.1	18	36	Completed space closure	Extraction of FPM (between 1–4)	61.2% complete space closure

KEY: SD standard deviation, NR not reported, G-group, FS fissure sealant, USPHS United States Public Health Service, ART atraumatic restorative treatment, SEA self-etch adhesive, TEA total-etch adhesive, CAD-CAM computer aided design and computer aided manufacture, GI gingival index, DPT dental panoramic tomograph