Trial reportScientific reports2020
Subjective versus objective, polymer bur-based selective carious tissue removal: 1-year interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare subjective (S) vs. objective (O) selective carious tissue removal using hand-excavation versus a self-limiting polymer bur, respectively. A community-based single-blind cluster-randomized controlled superiority trial was performed. This is a 1-year-interim analysis. 115 children (age 7-8 years) with ≥1 vital primary molar with a deep dentin lesion (>1/2 dentin depth) were included (60 S/55 O). The cluster was the child, with eligible molars being treated identically (91 S/86 O). Cavities were prepared and carious tissue on pulpo-proximal walls selectively removed using hand instruments (S), or a self-limiting polymer bur (Polybur P1, Komet). Cavities were restored using glass-hybrid material (Equia Forte, GC). Treatment times and children's satisfaction were recorded. Generalized-linear models (GLM) and multi-level Cox-regression analysis were applied. Initial treatment times were not significantly different between protocols (mean; 95%CI S: 433; 404-462 sec; O: 412; 382-441 sec; p = 0.378/GLM). There was no significant difference in patients' satisfaction (p = 0.164). No pulpal exposures occurred. 113 children were re-examined. Failures occurred in 22/84 O-molars (26.2%) and 26/90 S-molars (28.9%). Pulpal complications occurred in 5(6%) O and 2(2.2%) S molars, respectively. Risk of failure was not significantly associated with the removal protocol, age, sex, dental arch or tooth type (p > 0.05/Cox), but was nearly 5-times higher in multi-surface than single-surface restorations (HR: 4.60; 95% CI: 1.70-12.4). Within the limitations of this interim analysis, there was no significant difference in treatment time, satisfaction and risk of failure between O and S.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.