ArticlePeerJ2024
Evaluation of dentin features in teeth after caries removal by three techniques (chemomechanical, mechanical with a smart bur, and air-abrasion): an
Article in PeerJ, 2024. 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.
- Ultrasonic Cavity Preparation with CVD Diamond Tips: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Study of Dentin Surface Morphology and Smear Layer Formation.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Misdiagnosis-Driven Dental Extractions in Patients with Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Retrospective Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Different methods for removing dental carious lesions exist, including conventional rotary caries removal and new advanced technology like polymer-based burs, chemomechanical agents, air abrasion, and laser. Objectives: This study shows the differences in features of dentin (smear layer, patency of dentinal tubules, surface irregularities, intertubular micro porosities, and exposed dentinal tubules) among different types of caries removal techniques. Materials and Methods: An Results: Generally, SEM showed the highest ratio of score 1 of smear layer presence, surface irregularities, and microporosity in all groups in both magnifications. The patency of tubules showed the highest ratio of score 1 in G1, scores 2 in both G2 and G3 in magnification 4,000x, while 8,000x there was the highest ratio of its score 1 in G1 and G2 while the G3 has score 2 as the highest score. The exposed dentinal tubules showed the highest ratio in G1 in score 3, in G2 in score 2, and in G3 in score 1 in magnification 4,000x, while 8,000x there was the highest ratio of its score 2 in both G1 and G3 while the G3 has highest score 1. The study with magnification 4,000x showed a significant difference (S) among three groups in exposed dentinal tubules with a Conclusions: All groups were effective in removing caries and can successfully treat young, scared or stressed patients. All methods of caries removal produce clinically parametric changes in the residual dentin.
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.