This review aimed to systematically investigate the effect of minimal intervention dentistry on patient-reported and observation-based outcomes of anxiety, pain and patient cooperation in the pediatric population. Microinvasive treatments (MITs) were compared to conventional treatments, home-based and professionally applied non-invasive treatments (NITs), and between MITs. Two reviewers independently screened studies from four electronic databases, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach. Ultimately, 26 studies were included for qualitative synthesis, with the data from 12 studies being incorporated into the meta-analysis. No statistically significantly differences in terms of anxiety were noted between MITs and conventional treatments, or between MITs from the meta-analyses. The treatment durations of MITs were not necessarily shorter than conventional treatments but varied with the use of local anesthesia, behavioral and clinical approach, and other confounding factors. The certainties of evidence were deemed low due to high risk of bias of the included studies. NITs evoked less anxiety and pain compared to MITs. Minimal intervention dentistry is an alternative treatment to manage dental caries among children and does not arouse different levels of dental anxiety and pain compared to other treatment modalities. However, further well-designed studies are required to draw an evidence-based conclusion.
Keywords: dental anxiety; meta-analysis; minimal intervention dentistry; patient-reported outcomes; preschool children; systematic review.