ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2024
Which caries removal method to select?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bonding to Demineralized Dentin: Impact of Immediate and Delayed Dentin Sealing over Time.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Effect of Indirect Pulp Capping Materials On Regional Dentin Seal.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Article
- The Outcome of Old-School Indirect Pulp Capping over 40 Years: A Practice-Based Retrospective Evaluation.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Effects of different restorative materials on incisor root canal and crown restoration outcomes along with patient functional recovery.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the success of different protective liners after performing selective caries removal.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2025Review
- Influence of Academic Training and Professional Experience on the Management of Deep Caries Lesions.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Selective Caries Removal: A Case Report with 21-Year Follow-Up.Case reports in dentistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesSearches were carried out using PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases between January 2008 and January 2023. Only articles in English language were included. Boolean operators were used to search: "permanent teeth" OR "permanent tooth" OR "permanent dentition" AND "deep caries" OR "stepwise" AND "partial caries removal OR "stepwise caries removal" OR "pulp vitality" OR "healing rate". STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials, which compared the total removal of carious tissue with either a selective or stepwise removal in permanent teeth with deep carious lesions. Criteria also required a follow up of at least 6 months and publications in English. Exclusion criteria were articles in other languages, articles not comparing different types of total or selective caries removal and articles published before January 2008. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction followed PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers independently screened articles, analysing titles and abstracts using Rayyan's Intelligent Systematic Review Platform. They also collected data and risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomised Trials, dividing articles into high risk of bias, few concerns and low risk of bias. A third researcher resolved conflict or doubt in case of divided opinions.
resultsIn total, 105 articles were identified, and 10 duplicates removed. 95 articles were reviewed by title and abstract and 75 of these did not meet the inclusion criteria. 20 articles were then read, excluding a further 15 due to comparing only partial removal or non-selective caries removal or absence of numerical data. This left 5 articles which met eligibility criteria. These were randomised controlled trials between 2010 and 2021. Follow up ranged from 1 month to 5 years. The inclusion and exclusion criteria in all studies had similar clinical parameters. 3 studies performed management only on permanent molars, whilst the rest also included management on permanent incisors/canines/premolars and molars. Management of caries was divided into non-selective caries removal vs partial caries removal (either selective or stepwise). All but 2 studies included specific information about the materials used. Liners were calcium hydroxide or Dycal, provisional restorations were glass ionomer cements or Ketax Molar and definitive restorations were Herculite Tetric N-Ceram resin, Ivolclar Vivadent or amalgam. Clinical success or failure was measured using pulp vitality, absence of periapical lesions, radiographic analysis and lack of symptoms. Clinical follow up was evaluated by external examiners, although 2 studies did not specify this clearly. There were a variety of tools used for statistical analysis in each study.
conclusionsWhen comparing non-selective caries removal with either selective or stepwise, 3 studies proposed statistically significant differences in terms of longevity, marginal integrity and success rate of restorations. 1 study stated inexistence of statistically relevant divergences between procedures. Non-selective caries removal is not highly recommended for deep carious lesions and may be considered invasive and risks pulpal exposure. Both selective and stepwise removal are considered conservative approaches. Selective removal is considered the best management option in the short term (with 1.5 years follow up), predominantly related to a lower risk of pulpal exposure. At 5 years, however, the results of selective were similar to those of non-selective, accepting the null hypothesis. There were also no differences in success rates for materials used for definitive restorations.
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.