Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26962375›Full record

ArticleThe open dentistry journal2015

Caries Removal by Chemomechanical (Carisolv™) vs. Rotary Drill: A Systematic Review.

Viral P Maru, B S Shakuntala, C Nagarathna

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The open dentistry journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04573608 (The Impact of Minimally Invasive Restorative Techniques on Dental Pain in Pregnant Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04573608 phase2completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

The Impact of Minimally Invasive Restorative Techniques on Dental Pain in Pregnant Women: a Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNourhan M.AlyRan2019 to 2019Enrolled162ConditionsDental Pain, Patient SatisfactionArmsPapacarie, Atraumatic Restorative Treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Viral P MaruDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Rajarajeswari Dental College & Hospital, Mysore Road, Kumbalgodu, Bangalore 560 074 India.
B S ShakuntalaDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Rajarajeswari Dental College & Hospital, Mysore Road, Kumbalgodu, Bangalore 560 074 India.
C NagarathnaDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Rajarajeswari Dental College & Hospital, Mysore Road, Kumbalgodu, Bangalore 560 074 India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChemomechanical caries removal is an effective alternative to the traditional rotary drilling method. The advantages of chemomechanical techniques in terms of the need for anesthesia, pain perception and patient preference are systematically reviewed and a meta-analysis of the time required for caries removal is reported.

methodRandomized controlled studies of comparison of chemomechanical techniques with conventional rotary drill were selected from a systematic search of standard biomedical databases, including the PubMed and Cochrane clinical trials. Non-repeated search results were screened for relevance and risk of bias assessment, followed by methodology assessment. Statistical models were applied to the outcome parameters - time required, pain perception, need of anesthesia and patient preference - extracted from the studies.

resultsOut of the 111 non-repeated search results, 26 studies receiving a low bias score were selected for the review, and 16 randomized clinical trials of rotary and Carisolv techniques were considered for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis by fixed effect as well as random effect models indicate that Carisolv takes more time (3.65 ± 0.05 and 4.09 ± 0.29 min) than rotary drill (8.65 ± 0.09 and 8.97 ± 0.66 min) method. Advantages of reduced pain (14.67 for Carisolv vs. 6.76 for rotary drill), need for anesthesia (1.59% vs. 10.52%) outweigh the longer time requirement and make it the preferred (18.68% vs. 4.69%) method.

conclusionChemomechanical techniques stand out as a minimally invasive and preferred method based on the meta-analyses. Evaluation of pain experienced using robust methods is needed to strengthen the evidence for their use.

Indexed as

Caries removalcarisolvchemomechanicaldental cariespain perceptionrotary drill.

Identifiers

PMID26962375
PMCPMC4768667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.