Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025
Selective removal of dental caries in permanent teeth: an 18-month clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Calcium silicate liner versus no liner in selective caries removal: a one-year randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of restorations after selective removal of carious tissue (SRCT) in permanent teeth. MATERIAL AND
methodsA randomized, controlled, and blinded clinical trial was conducted on 74 teeth to compare SRCT with two types of non-selective removal (nSRCT), which served as control groups. For medium-depth lesions (D2) that reached the middle third of the dentin, SRCT was compared with non-selective removal to hard dentine (nSRCT-HD). For deep lesions (D3) extending to the inner third of the dentin, SRCT was compared with stepwise removal of carious tissue (StRCT). Outcomes included pulp sensitivity and restoration quality, assessed using FDI Functional Property criteria. Adjusted analyses were performed using Poisson regression with robust variance to assess the risk ratio (RR) and its respective 95% confidence interval.
resultsA total of 62, 50, and 39 teeth were followed at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively. Three pulp sensitivity failures occurred at 6 months (2 nSRCT, 1 SRCT), with no additional failures at 12 and 18 months. Regarding quality of restoration, no failure was observed and there was not significant difference between groups up to the 18-month period.
conclusionSRCT was clinically effective in both mid-depth (D2) and deep (D3) lesions, addressing pulp sensitivity and restoration quality. In D3 lesions, it minimized the risk of pulp exposure while preserving dentin integrity, while in D2 lesions, it preserved tooth structure without compromising restoration performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: SRCT is a less invasive strategy, preserves more dental tissue and presents satisfactory results in relation to the preservation of pulp sensitivity and quality of restorations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40210753What 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.