A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Chemomechanical (Carie-Care™) Versus Conventional Caries Removal for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. 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 · 2026
   Article
2. Effectiveness of Dental Restorative Materials in the Atraumatic Treatment of Carious Primary Teeth in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
   Review
3. Pain Perception During Minimally Invasive Caries Removal in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Chemo-Mechanical Caries Removal.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
   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

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as