ArticleCureus2023
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Minimal Invasive Methods Versus Conventional Methods for Caries Removal in Primary Molars.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 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
- Antimicrobial Efficacy of Chemomechanical Carie Removal Agents-A Systematic Integrative Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimEvaluating the efficacy of two "minimal invasive methods" of caries removal (Brix 3000/ceramic bur) in comparison with the conventional method in the management of dental caries in primary molars. Materials and methods: A sum of 60 teeth from children ranging from four to nine years old of both sexes were selected for this study and randomly assigned to three groups: Group I (Brix 3000), Group II (ceramic bur), and Group III (diamond bur), with 20 teeth per group.
resultsRegarding the efficacy of caries removal, the Brix 3000 group had significantly the lowest efficacy, while the ceramic bur and diamond bur groups were significantly the highest without significant differences between the ceramic and diamond groups. Regarding caries removal time, the Brix 3000 group was significantly the highest, while the diamond bur group was significantly the lowest, and the ceramic bur group was intermediate between them. Regarding pain perception, the Brix 3000 and ceramic bur groups were significantly the lowest, with insignificant differences between them, while the diamond bur group was significantly the highest.
conclusionCeramic bur is an excellent alternative treatment for caries removal in children in comparison with conventional methods and CMCR. Brix 3000®, despite being less painful in comparison with drilling methods, has lower efficacy and efficiency.
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.