SynthesisClinical oral investigations2026
Effectiveness of BRIX3000 for chemo-mechanical caries removal: a systematic review and meta-analysis of time and pain outcomes.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis systematic review was conducted to critically assess and statistically synthesise data from all available clinical studies on this topic. This study focused on the efficacy and safety of this agent (BRIX3000), the time required for caries removal, and the pain experienced by patients during the procedure, to provide clinicians and researchers with clear evidence on whether BRIX3000 is genuinely effective. MATERIALS AND
methodsElectronic literature searches were performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to collect eligible randomised clinical trials that had evidence regarding the efficacy of BRIX3000 for chemo-mechanical caries removal in comparison with the conventional rotary instruments and other atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) methods. The selected studies included children and adults of both sexes, with no age or gender preference, who had dentinal carious lesions in primary or permanent teeth without pulpal involvement.
resultsNine randomised trials (eight in paediatric and one in adult populations) were included. Pooled analyses indicated that BRIX3000 was associated with a longer mean caries removal time than control techniques (MD 4.58 min, 95% CI 2.45 to 6.70; p < 0.0001; I² = 96%) and with lower pain scores on the Wong-Baker FACES scale among paediatric patients (MD - 2.50, 95% CI - 4.37 to - 0.62; p = 0.009; I² = 92%). Complete caries removal did not differ significantly between groups in either the paediatric (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.34; p = 0.59) or adult (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.49; p = 0.69) subgroup. All pooled estimates exhibited substantial heterogeneity, and the adult evidence comprised only two trials. Most included studies were judged to be at low overall risk of bias on the RoB 2 tool.
conclusionWithin the limits of substantial heterogeneity, short follow-up, and a small adult evidence base, BRIX3000 may represent a useful chemo-mechanical alternative - particularly in paediatric and anxiety-prone patients - at the cost of a modest increase in procedural time. Adequately powered trials with longer follow-up are required to confirm these preliminary findings. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our results indicate that BRIX3000 can be a viable option for patients with extensive fear of conventional methods, as well as for the paediatric population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42249146What 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.