Trial reportBMC oral health2023
The effectiveness of Carie-Care™, chemomechanical caries removal technique in primary teeth: randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal and conventional mechanical caries removal for the treatment of primary molar caries in children: a meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- One-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of young permanent molars treated with brix 3000 vs. papacárie duo: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Comparative evaluation of BRIX3000 and Carisolv in chemomechanical caries removal in immature permanent first molars: a randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Chemomechanical (Carie-Care™) Versus Conventional Caries Removal for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2025Trial
- Comparison of the Efficiency of the Carie-Care and Bromelain Gel, as Chemomechanical Caries Removal Techniques in Primary Teeth: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Review
- Survival of indirect pulp capping in deeply carious primary molars under local versus general anesthesia: a retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Selenium nanoparticles as a biological safe endodontic irrigant improving root canal sealing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Assessment of minimally invasive caries excavation methods on caries-affected human dentin: A comparative analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Dental Restorative Materials in the Atraumatic Treatment of Carious Primary Teeth in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Histological Evaluation of Chemo Mechanical Caries Removal with a Babaco-Based Formulation Gel.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cost-efficiency analysis of atraumatic restorative treatment with and without chemical-mechanical caries removal agents based on pain and time for selective removal of carious tissue: a public health perspective.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Article
- Questionnaire survey on the clinical application of Hall technique preformed metal crowns in caries of primary molars in China.Frontiers in oral health · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChemomechanical techniques for caries removal have been introduced to overcome the shortcomings of the conventional rotatory instruments. This study aimed to clinically evaluate the effectiveness of the chemomechanical method of caries removal (Carie-Care™) over mechanical caries removal through the Atraumatic Restorative Technique in pediatric patients.
methodsA randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted. Fifty children fulfilling inclusion criteria were recruited from the outpatient clinic of Pediatric and Dental Public health department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University. Fifty open carious primary molars were randomly assigned into 2 equal groups according to the method of caries removal. In Group I (test group), caries was removed using the Carie-Care™ system and in Group II (control group), by using mechanical caries removal through the atraumatic restorative technique. Resin modified glass ionomer was used for teeth restoration, the two techniques were compared in each child according to time taken for caries removal, efficacy of caries removal, pain assessment, and child behavior.
resultsThe mean time taken for caries removal in the Carie-Care™ treatment group was (575.6 ± 114.8) seconds which was statistically significant higher as compared with the ART treatment group (346.1 ± 97.4) seconds (p < 0.001). The mean score of efficacy in caries removal was (0.6 ± 0.8) in the Carie-Care™ group, and (1.3 ± 0.7) in the ART treatment group. When compared to ART, Carie-Care™ was significantly more efficient in caries removal (p < 0.002). When pain was assessed by the SEM scale, it was observed that the Carie-Care™ caries removal technique showed statistically significantly more comfort during the procedure compared with the ART procedure (p < 0.001).Moreover, children in the Carie-Care™ group enjoyed the process and showed more cooperative behavior when assessed at the end of procedure than those in the ART group with statistically significant difference (p = 0.002).
conclusionsRemoval of carious tissue in primary teeth using Chemomechanical Carie-Care™ gel proved to be more time consuming than ART, but on the other hand it was more efficient, comfortable, and accepted by the pediatric patients.
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.