ArticleBDJ open2024
Comparing efficacies of various papain-based enzyme agents and 2.4% sodium hypochlorite gel in chemomechanical caries removal: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in BDJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative success of minimally invasive treatments for cavitated caries in primary teeth: a network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Treatment outcomes of pulpotomy in primary molars utilizing 2.25% sodium hypochlorite gel: a randomized controlled 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
- Article
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
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacies of Papacarie Duo gel, Brix 3000, Selecti-Solve gel, 2.4% sodium hypochlorite gel, and conventional rotary-mechanical method in caries removal and to evaluate the patient comfort.
methodsIt was a single-blinded, randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled trial with five arms. It was conducted at the Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Damascus University. Seventy-five specimens were randomly allocated into five groups: chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) using Selecti-Solve gel (G1), BRIX3000 (G2), Papacarie DUO gel (G3), or 2.4% sodium hypochlorite gel (G4), and caries excavation using conventional rotary-mechanical method (G5) (control group). The trial considered healthy patients aged 18-40. Permanent molars with class I carious lesions extending to the middle third of dentin with no pulpal and/or periodontal pathology were included. The efficacy of caries removal was considered the primary outcome measure, and the secondary outcome measures were treatment time, volumetric measurement of the cavity, and pain assessment.
resultsThe majority (73.30%) of cases from BRIX3000 and conventional rotary-mechanical method groups showed complete caries removal (p = 0.982). The mean time of caries removal was the highest (17.45 ± 4.42) in the 2.4% sodium hypochlorite gel group (p < 0.05), and the lowest (6.33 ± 1.69) was in the conventional rotary-mechanical method group (p < 0.05). The mean cavity volume was the highest (18.97 ± 9.76) in the Papacarie DUO gel group, and the lowest (14.87 ± 4.76) was in the 2.4% sodium hypochlorite gel group (p = 0.506). The conventional rotary-mechanical group exhibited the highest mean score (5.40 ± 1.72) of pain (p < 0.05). However, the mean score (2.67 ± 1.11) of pain reported reduced in the BRIX3000 group.
conclusionsCMCR agents could be a potential substitute for conventional rotary instrumentation methods, taking into account the long working time.
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.