Trial reportBMC oral health2025
One-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of young permanent molars treated with brix 3000 vs. papacárie duo: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05983900 (Clinical Evaluation and Antimicrobial Effect of Papain Based Chemo-mechanical Caries Removal Agents in Young Permanent Molars), which is not on this 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.
Clinical Evaluation and Antimicrobial Effect of Papain Based Chemo-mechanical Caries Removal Agents in Young Permanent Molars (A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical and Biological Evaluation of Chemo-Mechanical Caries Excavation with Brix 3000 in Primary Molars: An 18-Month Prospective Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManaging deep carious lesions in immature permanent molars presents a clinical challenge. Minimally invasive caries removal helps preserve apexogenesis by minimizing tissue loss. This study evaluated the effectiveness of two chemo-mechanical caries removal (CMCR) agents compared to hand excavation alone in young permanent molars.
methodsA three-arm randomized clinical trial included 108 children (8-10 years) with carious first permanent molars. Participants were assigned to: Group I (ART with Brix 3000), Group II (ART with Papacárie Duo), or Group III (ART with hand excavation). Dentin samples were collected before and after caries removal to assess S. mutans and Lactobacilli counts (CFU/ml). Time for caries removal and pain perception were recorded. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months. OHRQoL was assessed using CPQ8-10 at baseline and during the follow up.
resultsThe control group showed significantly shorter caries removal time (5.3 min) than Brix 3000 (11.3 min) and Papacárie Duo (12.1 min) (P < 0.01). However, higher pain scores were reported with hand excavation compared to Brix 3000 (P = 0.003) and Papacárie Duo (P < 0.001). Both within- and between-group comparisons showed significant reductions in S. mutans and Lactobacilli, with greater bacterial reduction in CMCR groups than ART alone (P < 0.001). CMCR groups had significantly higher restoration success rates than the control at 6 and 12 months (P = 0.02), and radiographic success was also greater at 12 months (P < 0.05). CPQ8-10 scores improved post-treatment across all groups (P < 0.001), with a notable difference at 6 months (P = 0.008).
conclusionsBrix 3000 and Papacárie Duo were more effective than hand excavation in reducing cariogenic bacteria, minimizing pain, and enhancing restoration longevity in immature permanent molars. Both CMCR methods supported favorable clinical, radiographic, and quality-of-life outcomes over one year.
trial registrationThis study was registered in ClinicalTrails.gov (NCT05983900) 09/06/2023, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05983900 .
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.