GuidelineCaries research2026
Deep Caries Management: EFCD-ESE-ORCA S3-Level Clinical Practice Guideline.
Guideline in Caries research, 2026. 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.
- Illuminating the invisible: translational biophotonics for contemporary caries detection and biological decision-making.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to develop an evidence-based S3-level clinical practice guideline for the management of deep and extremely deep caries in vital permanent teeth.
methodsAn evidence-based medical guideline based on systematically searched and appraised evidence as well as a structured consensus (S3-level) was jointly developed by the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD), the European Society of Endodontology (ESE), the Organization for Caries Research (ORCA), and the German Society of Conservative Dentistry (DGZ), following the methodological framework of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) and the GRADE approach. Four working groups formulated key clinical questions regarding: (1) caries removal strategies, (2) cavity liners, (3) management of exposed pulps, and (4) materials for direct pulp capping and pulpotomy. Systematic reviews were conducted for each question, and evidence was synthesized and graded for quality. A structured consensus process was used to formulate recommendations. In order to encourage its wide dissemination, this article is freely accessible on Clinical Oral Investigations, International Endodontic Journal, and Caries Research journals' websites.
resultsEvidence supports selective (SE) or stepwise caries removal (SW) over non-selective removal (NSE) to reduce the risk of pulp exposure in deep caries. Routine use of cavity liners after caries removal showed no consistent clinical benefit and is not routinely recommended. For vital pulp therapy following pulp exposure, both direct pulp capping and pulpotomy are effective options in teeth without irreversible pulpitis, while pulpotomy is an acceptable alternative to pulpectomy in cases with signs of irreversible pulpitis. Hydraulic calcium silicate cements demonstrated superior clinical outcomes compared to calcium hydroxide and should be preferred for pulp capping and pulpotomy. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate across questions and outcomes.
conclusionFor deep caries, maintaining pulp vitality by using less invasive management strategies is supported by current evidence. Implementation of this guideline requires clinician training, patient-centred decision-making, and consideration of economic and practical factors. Further research is needed, particularly for extremely deep caries and towards long-term 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.