ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparative study for assessment of two different minimally invasive caries removal techniques.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of the Efficiency of the Carie-Care and Bromelain Gel, as Chemomechanical Caries Removal Techniques in Primary Teeth: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Non-Operative, Micro- and Minimally Invasive Methods for Caries Treatment-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional method of using carbide burs for caries removal has long been shown to be quite successful. Nevertheless, it has some disadvantages, including excessive dentin removal, and patient discomfort.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare and assess time consumption and the caries removal effectiveness of Smart prep bur II and Brix 3000 in addition to carbide bur (as a control group). MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: 60 newly extracted carious human permanent premolars were collected from patients between 14 and 24 years old. Teeth were extracted for orthodontic reasons. Caries should be deep but without pulp involvement and all teeth have only one surface caries (mesial or distal class II carious lesions). Samples have been collected, cleaned and stored in distilled water until starting the experiment. Teeth were divided into two groups in addition to third group that represent a control group (n = 20). Infected carious dentin for each group was removed using Smart prep bur II (polymer bur) or Brix 3000 (caries dissolving enzymes). Conventional carbide bur was used to remove carious dentin in the control group. Two parameters were assessed: time consumption and caries removal efficacy. Cavities were inspected by stereomicroscopy and caries removal was categorized after application of caries detector dye.
resultsRegarding the amount of time needed for soft caries removal and the efficacy of total amount removed of infected dentine, there was no statistically significant difference (P ˂ 0.001) found between the two minimally invasive groups. While for carbide bur group, recorded values were considered statistically significant (P > 0.001) when compared to the two minimally invasive groups.
conclusionwithin the limitation of this in-vitro study, both Smart Prep bur II and BRIX 3000 are efficient methods for caries removal by minimally invasive approach. However, both are less effective and time-consuming methods when compared to conventional carbide bur.
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.