Trial reportBMC oral health2024
Evaluation of residual carious dentin detection methods after cavity preparation: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Biocidal Additive for Resin-Based Dental Composites: Is Modification with Didodecyldimethylammonium Bromide (DDAB) Effective?Polymers · 2026Article
- Fluorescence as a Quantitative Indicator of Cariogenic Bacteria During Chemo-Mechanical Caries Excavation with BRIX 3000 in Primary Teeth.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Turkish dentist practice and opinions on diagnosing and treating deep caries lesions: a web-based survey.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence systems for intraoperative diagnosis during selective caries removal: a scoping review.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Review
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
backgroundThe treatment of caries in dentine poses the challenge of balancing adequate caries removal to prevent residual caries and excessive sound dentine removal. No diagnostic tool is available to define the caries removal limit clinically. This study aimed to determine the efficiency of visual-tactile, caries detector dye (CDD), and laser fluorescence (LF) device methods for diagnosing residual caries after cavity preparation.
methodThe study was conducted as a three-arm, double-blinded, parallel-group randomized trial at the Restorative Dentistryclinics of a teaching hospital in northeastern Nigeria. Individualized carious lesions in dentine were randomly allocated to three groups of residual caries diagnosis methods, A (visual-tactile), B (CDD), and C (LF). All carious lesions had caries excavation and cavity preparation using the visual-tactile method. Main outcome measures were based on the assessment of residual caries of prepared cavities in groups B and C with CDD and LF (DIAGNOdent Pen) respectively, and bacterial culture growth of dentine samples collected from all (A, B, and C) the preparedcavities.
designThree-arm, double-blinded, parallel group randomized trial. A centralized randomization, into three groups A, B, and C, used opaque envelopes containing names of diagnostic methods allocated to teeth in the trail.
settingRestorative Dentistry clinics of a teaching hospital in northeastern Nigeria.
participantsNinety patients with dental caries in dentine. All 90 patients met the requirements for the study.
interventionCarious lesions were excavated, and cavity preparation was performed via the visual-tactile method. Prepared cavities in groups B and C were assessed for residual caries with CDD and LF (DIAGNOdent Pen), respectively, by a blinded independent investigator. Dentine samples were obtained from all the prepared cavities (A, B, and C) and subjected to bacterial culture. Teeth were restored and follow-up was not required.
main outcome measuresThe presence or absence of residual caries staining by CDD and fluorescence by DIAGNOdent in prepared cavities of groups B and C, respectively; the presence or absence of bacterial culture growth for all three groups.
resultsNinety participants (mean age 31.6 ± 7.480), each with one tooth with a deep carious lesion were randomized. The visual-tactile method had a specificity of 100%, CDD had 100% sensitivity and 92.9% specificity, and DIAGNOdent had 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity when measured against bacterial cultures. The positive predictive value for CDD (50%) was half that for DIAGNOdent (100%). The negative predictive value was the lowest (90%) for the visual-tactile method. The accuracy was highest (100%) for DIAGNOdent. There was perfect agreement between the DIAGNOdent and bacteriological tests (kappa = 1.00), whereas the CDD had an above-random level of agreement (kappa = 0.63).
conclusionsAll three residual caries evaluation methods were efficient, independently, in detecting residual caries in prepared cavities. DIAGNOdent was the most specific of the tested modalities and had the highest agreement with the bacteriological confirmatory test.
trial registrationPanAfrican Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR202309545839091), registered on 1st September 2023.
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.