ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
A Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Mechanical and Chemomechanical Techniques for Dentinal Caries Removal in Primary Teeth: An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To compare the Objectives: The objectives of the study are as follows: (1) To evaluate the time taken for caries removal; (2) To evaluate the remaining carious dentin using stereomicroscopic and polarized microscopic methods. Materials and methods: A total of 30 primary molars exhibiting active carious lesions extending into dentin, extracted due to normal physiological root resorption, were collected for the study. Each carious lesion was sectioned into two halves, and the samples were subsequently divided into two groups: Group I-cavities prepared using a Bromelain-based gel, and group II-cavities prepared using SmartBurs™. Caries excavation was performed using both the methods. For all the samples of both groups, the area of the remaining carious dentin was measured using a stereomicroscope and a polarized microscope. Further visualization of remaining caries was done using caries-detecting dye, followed by stereomicroscopic and polarized microscopic evaluation. Results: The mean time taken for caries removal was 8.1 minutes in group I (Bromelain gel) and 2.8 minutes in group II; the intergroup comparison of time difference for caries removal was statistically significant with Conclusion: The chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) method using Bromelain gel significantly reduced the remaining carious lesion in comparison to SmartBurs™ with time taken by Bromelain gel being more in comparison to SmartBurs™. How to cite this article: Kashani RN, Kaul B, Rajput S,
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.