ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Assessment of minimally invasive caries excavation methods on caries-affected human dentin: A comparative analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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.
- Caries removal efficiency and minimally invasive potential of SmartPrep burs, Brix 3000, and excavus: A micro-computed tomography comparative study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
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
Background: Dental caries is a major global health issue, leading to tooth loss, infections, and even systemic complications. Modern dentistry favours minimally invasive caries removal, but its impact on the bond between composite and caries-affected dentin requires further study. The present in vitro analysis evaluated the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of composite bonded to human dentin impacted by caries, after three caries removal methods: SmartPrep bur, chemo-mechanical removal, and air abrasion. The null hypothesis posited no significant difference in bond strength among the techniques. Material and Methods: Twenty-one extracted human molars with caries, but no pulpal involvement, were randomly allocated into three groups. Caries removal was performed using: 1) SmartPrep bur, 2) chemo-mechanical method using Papacarie® gel (Formula & Acao, Sao Paulo, Brazil) 3) air abrasion (AquaCare air-abrasion (Velopex, London, UK). Following caries removal, a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive and composite restoration were placed. The test specimens from each group underwent microtensile bond strength testing utilizing a Universal Testing Machine, data were statistically analysed using one-way ANOVA and further examined with Tukey's post hoc test ( Results: Analysis revealed that SmartPrep bur demonstrated superior microtensile bond strength (33.31 ± 10.23 MPa), followed by chemo-mechanical removal (22.86 ± 11.61 MPa). Air abrasion yielded the lowest mean bond strength values (15.74 ± 2.99 MPa). The SmartPrep bur and air abrasion groups showed statistically significant differences ( Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the caries removal technique significantly influences the bond strength of composite to caries-affected dentin. The SmartPrep bur achieved superior microtensile bond strength, suggesting potential clinical benefits. These results emphasize the importance of technique selection for achieving optimal restorative outcomes.
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.