Table 2.
Detailed summary of included studies.
| Study | In vitro/in situ | Type of intervention | Independent control/within sample control | Material groups | One step/multiple step (with etch) | Results | Sealing of sound surface (s)/sealing of artificial lesion (l) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bekes, Francke et al., 2009 | In situ |
1) Control 2) Hyposen |
Independent |
1) – 2) Desensitizer |
1) No treatment 2) Multiple step (2 steps, 2layers) |
The application of a desensitizer hampers the demineralization of dentin | s |
| Bekes, Schmelz et al., 2009 | In situ |
1) A: Admira Protect 2) V: VivaSens 3) H: Hyposen 4) C: control group (untreated) |
Independent |
1) Desensitizer 2) Desensitizer/(Fluoride) 3) Desensitizer 4) – |
1) One step (2 layers) 2) One step (Mix 2 solutions) 3) Multiple step (2 steps, 2 layers) 4) No treatment |
The application of a desensitizer hampers the demineralization of dentin under different oral hygiene conditions | s |
| Gernhardt et al., 2004 | In vitro |
1) Syntac, non-irradiated 2) Syntac, irradiated 3) Scotchbond 1, non-irradiated 4) Scotchbond 1, irradiated |
within sample |
1) Adhesive 2) – 3) Adhesive 4) – |
1) Multiple step (2 steps) 2) Multiple step (2 steps) 3) Multiple step (2 steps, 2 layers) 4) Multiple step (2 steps, 2 layers) |
The lesion depth was significantly reduced compared to the control groups No significant difference between the irradiated and non-irradiated specimens |
s |
| Gernhardt et al., 2005 | In vitro |
1) Seal & Protect 2.0 2) D/Sense 2 3) Gluma Desensitizer |
within sample |
1) Sealant 2) Desensitizer 3) Desensitizer |
1) One step (2 layers) 2) Multiple step (2 solution) 3) One step (1 layer) |
The application of a desensitizer hampers the demineralization of dentin | s |
| Gernhardt et al., 2007 | In situ |
1) C: control group (untreated) 2) S: Syntac Classic 3) X: Xeno III 4) H: Hyposen |
Independent |
1) – 2) Adhesive 3) Adhesive 4) Desensitizer |
1) No treatment 2) Multiple step (2 steps) 3) One step (Mix 2 solutions) 4) Multiple step (2 steps, 2 layers) |
The application of a desensitizer/adhesive hampers the demineralization of dentin | s |
| Hahn et al., 1999 | In vitro |
1) Group 1: Syntac, Heliobond (no air thinning) 2) Group 2: Syntac, Heliobond (as recommended) 3) Group 3: Syntac, without Heliobond 4) Group 4: Prime & Bond 2.0 (no air drying) 5) Group 5: Prime & Bond 2.0 (as recommended) 6) Group 6: Prime & Bond 2.0 (dentin pretreated with 36% phosphoric acid) |
within sample |
1) – 2) Adhesive 3) Adhesive 4) – 5) Adhesive 6) – |
1) Multiple step (3 steps) 2) Multiple step (3 steps) 3) Multiple step (2 steps) 4) One step (2 layers) 5) One step (2 layers) 6) Multiple step (2 steps, 2 layers) |
The application of an adhesive hampers the demineralization of dentin | s |
| Kawamura et al., 2019 | In vitro |
1) MS Coat One 2) MS Coat F 3) Fluor Jelly 4) Contol group |
Independent |
1) Desensitizer 2) Desensitizer 3) Desensitizer 4) – |
1) One step 2) One step 3) One step 4) – |
A desensitizer containing 3000 ppm fluoride and MS polymer has the same anti-demineralization effect as an fluoride paste containing 9000 ppm F | s |
| Kuramoto et al., 2005 | In vitro |
1) Prime & Bond 2.1 (PB) 2) Single Bond (SB) 3) Liner Bond 2 (LB2) 4) MDPB-containing primer and LB bond 5) Control group (untreated) |
Independent |
1) Adhesive 2) Adhesive 3) Adhesive 4) Adhesive 5) – |
1) One step 2) One step 3) Multiple step (2 steps) 4) Multiple step (2 steps) 5) No treatment |
The application of an adhesive hampers the demineralization of dentin | l |
| Lodha et al., 2014 | In vitro |
1) Control group (deionized water) 2) Duraphat (positiv control) 3) Teethmate Desensitizer 4) Nanoseal |
Independent |
1) – 2) Fluoride 3) Desensitizer 4) Desensitizer |
1) No treatment 2) One step 3) One step 4) One step (Mix 2 solutions) |
Both desensitizer and hamper the demineralization of dentin , with 4) resulting in improved inhibition after prolonged immersion in artificial saliva | s |
| Miyajima et al., 2016 | In vitro |
1) Nanoseal 2) Control group (untreated) |
Independent |
1) Desensitizer 2) - |
1) One step (Mix 2 solutions) 2) No treatment |
Calcium and phosphorous were incorporated into the superficial layer of specimens in 4) | s |
| Obayashi et al., 2020 | In vitro |
1) Control group 2) MS0 (−) 3) MS0 (+) = MS Coat One 4) MS3000 (−) 5) MS3000 (+) = MS Coat F 6) MS7000 (−) 7) MS7000 (+) 8) NaF9000 = Fluor Jelly (positive control) |
Independent |
1) – 2) Desensitizer 3) Desensitizer 4) Desensitizer 5) Desensitizer 6) Desensitizer 7) Desensitizer 8) Desensitizer |
1) No treatment 2) One step 3) One step 4) One step 5) One step 6) One step 7) One step 8) One step |
The application of an experimental polymer-based desensitizer hampers the demineralization of dentin | s |
| Oshima et al., 2015 | In vitro |
1) Control group 2) OA (1% oxalic acid ) 3) MS Coat One (MSO) 4) MS Coat F (MSF) |
Independent |
1) – 2) Acid 3) Desensitizer 4) Desensitizer |
1) No treatment 2) One step 3) One step 4) One step |
The application of a polymer-based desensitizer with sodium fluoride was effective in sealing the dentin tubules and reduce demineralization of dentin | s |
| Saad et al., 2019 | In vitro |
1) Nanoseal 2) Caredyne Shield 3) Contol group |
Independent |
1) Desensitizer 2) Desensitizer 3) – |
1) One step (Mix 2 solutions) 2) One step (Mix 2 solutions) 3) No treatment |
Application of the zinc-containing CS desensitizer may show good potential as a new therapeutic treatment to prevent root caries formation | l |
| Tao et al., 2020 | In vitro |
1) Control group (negative) 2) Scotchbond Multi-Purpose SBMP (positive control) 3) SBMP-DMAHDM 4) SBMP-NACP 5) SBMP-NACP + DMAHDM |
within sample |
1) – 2) Adhesive 3) Adhesive 4) Adehsive 5) Adhesive |
1) No treatment 2) Multiple step (2 steps) 3) Multiple step (2 steps) 4) Multiple step (2 steps) 5) Multiple step (2 steps) |
The NACP + DMAHDM adhesive was effective in remineralizing dentin lesion in a biofilm model | l |
| Walter et al., 2008 | In vitro |
1) Gluma Comfort Bond 2) Gluma Comfort Bond + Desensitizer 3) iBond 4) One-up Bond F |
within sample |
1) Adhesive 2) Adhesive 3) Adhesive 4) Adhesive |
1) Multiple step (2 steps) 2) Multiple step (2 steps) 3) One step (3 layers) 4) One step (3 layers) |
Lesions in the groups 2), 3) and 4), were shallower after treatment than in control group | s |
| Zhou et al., 2017 | In vitro |
1) Control group (untreated) 2) Clearfil SE Bond (SEB) 3) Icon-etch120s + Icon-infiltrant (HA120) 4) Icon-etch10s + Icon-infiltrant (HA10) 5) K-etchant10s + Icon-infiltrant (PA10) |
Independent |
1) – 2) Adhesive 3) Infiltration 4) – 5) – |
1) No treatment 2) Multiple step (2 steps) 3) Multiple step (3 steps, 2 layers) 4) Multiple step (3 steps, 2 layers) 5) Multiple step (3 steps, 2 layers) |
Resin infiltration with 120 s-HCl pretreatment has got a good penetration ability and preventive effect on root caries | l |
| Study | Duration | Outcome | Method of measurement | Number of specimen per group | Randomized allocation of specimens | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bekes, Francke et al., 2009 | 35 days | Lesion depth | Polarized light microscope | 9 | Randomized | ||
| Bekes, Schmelz et al., 2009 | 35 days | Lesion depth | Inverse polarizing microscope, Photographs | 18 | Randomized | ||
| Gernhardt et al., 2004 | 14 days | Lesion depth | Inverse polarizing microscope, Photographs | 15 | Randomized | ||
| Gernhardt et al., 2005 | 14 days | Lesion depth | Inverse polarizing microscope, Photographs | 20 | Randomized | ||
| Gernhardt et al., 2007 | 35 days | Lesion depth | Inverse polarizing microscope, Photographs | 28 | n/a | ||
| Hahn et al., 1999 | 6 days | Lesion depth | Inverse polarizing microscope | 10 | Randomized | ||
| Kawamura et al., 2019 | 4 days | Integrated mineral loss, mineral density profile | Transverse microradiography (TMR) | 6 | Randomized | ||
| Kuramoto et al., 2005 | 14 days | Lesion depth | Contact microradiograph, stereomicroscope, Scanning electron microscope (SEM) | 5 | n/a | ||
| Lodha et al., 2014 | 7 days (but only 3 h demin) | Integrated mineral loss, mineral density profile surface morphology | Micro-CT, SEM | 10 | Randomized | ||
| Miyajima et al., 2016 | 3 days | Lesion depth, Integrated mineral loss, mineral density profile | Micro-CT, SEM, Electron probe micro analyzer (EPMA) | 12 | Randomized | ||
| Obayashi et al., 2020 | 1 day (but only 10 h demin) | Integrated mineral loss, mineral density profile, surface morphology | Micro-CT, SEM | 18 | n/a | ||
| Oshima et al., 2015 | 1 day (but only 5 h Demin) | Integrated mineral loss, mineral density profile, surface morphology, fluoride ion release | Micro-CT, SEM, Fluoride ion-specific electrode | 21 | n/a | ||
| Saad et al., 2019 | 0.83 day (20 h) | Lesion depth, Integrated mineral loss, surface morphology | TMR, SEM | 7 | Randomized | ||
| Tao et al., 2020 | 3.33 days (80 h) | Lesion depth | Polarized light microscope, Photographs | 10 | Randomized | ||
| Walter et al., 2008 | 7 days | Lesion depth, lesion expansion | Confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) | 12–18 | n/a | ||
| Zhou et al., 2017 | 4 days | Lesion depth, Resin penetration, frequency of cervical enamel loss dentino-enamel-junction separation length | Swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT), Fluorescent microscope (FM), CLSM | 12 | Randomized |