Trial reportPloS one2026
Comparison of chemo-mechanical and conventional caries removal methods in 6-to-12-year-old children: Randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundTo address the discomfort associated with conventional drilling for caries removal in children, a minimally invasive approach such as chemo-mechanical caries removal was developed. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of, and patient behavior associated with chemo-mechanical caries removal versus conventional drilling in children aged 6-12 years.
methodsA split-mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted involving 66 molar teeth. The effectiveness of Papacarie Duo Gel and conventional drilling methods was assessed using colony-forming unit (CFU) counts before and after each treatment. Cavity preparation time and intraoperative patient behavior using the Frankl Behavior Rating Scale were also evaluated.
resultsBoth methods resulted in a significant reduction in bacterial counts post-treatment. However, conventional drilling showed a greater percentage reduction in bacterial load (82.9 ± 13.9; t = -4.42, p < 0.001) compared to the chemo-mechanical method (68.6 ± 16.6). The mean caries removal time was 692.4 ± 245.9 sec with the chemo-mechanical method, compared to 266.9 ± 101.6 sec with conventional drilling. In terms of behavior, 57.6% of the children exhibited a positive response during chemo-mechanical treatment whereas negative behavior was more commonly observed with conventional drilling.
conclusionWhile conventional drilling remains the better-established and time-efficient method of caries removal, the chemo-mechanical technique serves as a valuable alternative for managing children, reducing anxiety and promoting greater comfort and cooperation during treatment.
trial registrationPanAfrican Clinical Trial Registry PACTR202310877678533.
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.