SynthesisClinical oral investigations2022
Influence of the chemomechanical and mechanical carious tissue removal on the risk of restorative failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Histological Evaluation of Chemo Mechanical Caries Removal with a Babaco-Based Formulation Gel.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Microhardness and characterization of human dental tissue after application of enzymatic chemical agents:Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo summarize and evaluate critically the results of clinical trials comparing the risk of failure of restorations after chemomechanical and mechanical carious tissue removal. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, LILACS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases, and grey literature were searched to identify studies related to the research question and published up to January 2022. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to compare the effect of chemomechanical and mechanical excavation on the outcome (restorative failure), considering the type of carious tissue removal (selective and complete) as subgroups.
resultsFrom 443 potentially eligible studies, 58 clinical studies were selected for full-text analysis, and 6 were included in the review. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk for failure of restorations performed after chemomechanical and mechanical excavation (RR: 1.26, 95% CI 0.93; 1.72, p = 0.14) either for complete (p = 0.97) or selective (p = 0.11) carious tissue removal. The heterogeneity found was null. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was low.
conclusionBased on the low certainty of evidence, the risk of failure of restorations performed after chemomechanical and mechanical carious tissue removal is similar. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Chemomechanical carious tissue removal may be performed before restoration placement, without jeopardizing the short-term longevity. Further studies are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36114390What 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.