CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-18). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2796 · Search date 2026-08-18 · Methodology v0.7

Icon resin infiltration,
does it really help with Reduced radiographic progression of non-cavitated proximal early caries?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 54 · Safety acceptable
One-year radiographic progression decreased, but the evidence is a small surrogate-outcome trial
The study reported no significant adverse events or side effects over one year. Acid etching and resin infiltration require professional dental application.
What the
research shows
The grade is C. At one year, radiographic progression occurred in 1/45 infiltrated lesions (2.2%) versus 9/45 controls (20.0%), an absolute difference of -17.8 percentage points. This was a small, single-center study of a radiographic surrogate, and 15 of 56 enrolled participants did not attend the one-year assessment.
What the
ads claim
Icon physically infiltrates porous proximal lesions with resin to block diffusion pathways. A favorable radiographic surrogate does not by itself prove fewer future restorations or better long-term tooth survival.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The trial product was ICON, DMG, Germany.
  • Both test and control lesions received fluoridated toothpaste, flossing, oral-hygiene education, and dietary advice.
  • Verdict 2789 is C with 50 points for biomimetic remineralization of early occlusal caries; this verdict concerns physical resin sealing between teeth.
  • Verdict 1914 is B with 76 points for arresting active early-childhood caries with silver diamine fluoride, while verdict 2712 is B with 70 points for restoring carious primary molars with Hall crowns. They apply at different sites and stages.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2796 · C 54
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

This was a two-author, single-center, split-mouth randomized trial. Fifty-six people enrolled, 15 declined follow-up, and 41 with 45 lesion pairs were assessed at one year. Patients were not given a mock procedure, but the radiographic examiner was blinded to lesion allocation. The Erciyes University Scientific Research Project Unit funded the study (TDH-2015-6060). The Funding, Acknowledgments, Conflict of Interest, and author-disclosure sections were reviewed; no statement said that DMG supplied trial materials. The two mechanically counted defects were total sample size below 200 and 26.8% attrition. Although the authors called one year short follow-up, it was not under the 12-week rule; lack of patient blinding was not counted again because the objective radiographic outcome had a blinded examiner.

02

Why this is classified as C (54)

A single small randomized trial found 17.8 points less radiographic progression, but only a surrogate was measured and attrition was substantial, giving C with 54 points.

Counterpoint. This grade concerns one-year radiographic progression of early proximal lesions, not occlusal remineralization, arrest of active cavitated disease, or restoration of carious primary molars.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — A statistically favorable radiographic surrogate in one small trial with substantial attrition

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointSSurrogate marker - laboratory or imaging measures
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Reduced radiographic lesion progression at one yearCRates were 2.2% versus 20.0%, but the outcome was radiographic.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Arslan S, Kaplan MH. 2020Single-center split-mouth randomized clinical trial45Erciyes University Scientific Research Project Unit (TDH-2015-6060)Lesion progression on digital-subtraction radiography at one year1/45 (2.2%) versus 9/45 (20.0%), absolute difference -17.8 points, P<0.05; no confidence interval was reportedSingle small trial of a radiographic surrogate
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-18).

Arslan S, Kaplan MH. The Effect of Resin Infiltration on the Progression of Proximal Caries Lesions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Med Princ Pract. 2020;29(3):238-243. PMID: 31476757. DOI: 10.1159/000503053.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-18 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Benefit of Resin Infiltration for Radiographic Progression of Non-Cavitated Proximal Caries, a Surrogate Outcome Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Benefit of Resin Infiltration for Radiographic Progression of Non-Cavitated Proximal Caries, a Surrogate Outcome — Evidence Grade C·54. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/general/resin-infiltration-noncavitated-proximal-caries-radiographic-progression/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.