SynthesisClinical oral investigations2025
Efficacy of different cavity liners compared to no cavity lining in managing deep caries in vital permanent teeth - a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Deep caries management: EFCD-ESE-ORCA S3-level clinical practice guideline.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Guideline
- Deep Caries Management: EFCD-ESE-ORCA S3-Level Clinical Practice Guideline.Caries research · 2026Guideline
- Comparison of mineral precipitation, elemental release, pH change and cytotoxicity of calcium-silicate cements and an experimental resin-modified glass ionomer cement containing bioactive glass.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- Transdentinal effects of flavonoid-based primers applied to caries-affected dentin on pulp cells.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Review
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
objectiveThis review aimed to evaluate whether the use of a certain cavity lining material (I) in patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent teeth associated with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis (P) is as efficacious as other materials or no cavity lining (C) in terms of patient-reported and clinically-reported outcomes (O), with "failure" identified as the primary critical outcome. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The systematic literature search was restricted to English-language publications using Cochrane Review, PubMed (Medline) and Ovid databases. Search strategies included combinations of free keywords, controlled vocabulary terms (Medical Subject Headings-MeSH), Boolean operators, truncations and proximity operators. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and comparative clinical trials (CCTs). Due to variability in reported outcomes, a meta-analysis was not conducted. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.
resultsAnalysis of 12 studies showed no significant differences in clinical outcomes between restorations with and without cavity liners. Studies directly comparing restorations with and without liners showed no statistically significant differences in key outcomes such as failure rates, postoperative hypersensitivity or secondary caries. (GRADE: low certainty) and minimizing postoperative hypersensitivity (GRADE: very low certainty). The effect of cavity lining on tooth survival (success rate: 94%-100%) and restoration longevity (failure rate: 0%-6%) was of low certainty.
conclusionCavity liners, regardless of the material, do not consistently deliver superior clinical outcomes compared to no liners. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings of this systematic review suggest that routine use of cavity liners in deep caries management may not be necessary for achieving successful restorative outcomes.
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.