Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
Clinical outcomes of selective removal to soft dentin versus firm dentin for deep caries lesions: a randomized controlled trial up to 5 years.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
- Calcium silicate liner versus no liner in selective caries removal: a one-year randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Selective removal of dental caries in permanent teeth: an 18-month clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Trial
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
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the success of selective removal to soft dentine (SRSD) with or without calcium silicate (CS) and selective removal to firm dentine (SRFD) in permanent dentition. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween November 2018 and March 2020, 165 posterior deep caries lesions in 134 patients were included in the study and randomly assigned into test (n = 101) and control (n = 64) groups. The control group (n = 46) received the treatment of SRFD with CS, while the test group was further randomized into two groups to receive SRSD with CS (n = 45) and SRSD without CS (n = 45). An additional group (PE) consisted of teeth with exposed pulps during caries removal (n = 29). The primary outcome of the study was to assess the vitality of the teeth based on clinical and radiographic examination after five years. The secondary outcome of the study was to evaluate the influence of baseline variables and CS application on treatment outcome. The success rates of different treatment strategies were compared (Pearson chi-squared and Log-rank tests). The impact of baseline variables and treatment strategies on failure and dentin bridge formation was analyzed using binary logistic regression model.
resultsThe success rate for SRSD with or without CS (94.1-100%) was significantly higher compared to SRFD (75.8%) and PE (81.8%) after five years (P = 0.012). Failure was less likely for premolars. Cavity type and depth had an influence on dentin bridge formation.
conclusionA five-year follow-up in this study demonstrated better clinical outcome for SRSD with or without CS compared to SRFD technique, irrespective of age, pre-op sensitivity, cavity type, radiographic depth and activity of the caries. Application of CS after SRSD in deeper cavities provided better healing in terms of dentin bridge formation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SRSD might be more advantageous over SRFD for the management of deep caries lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39702606What 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.