Question · asked by 1 review
Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW): Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness
- Population
- Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally considered to need a restoration
- Intervention
- Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)
- Comparison
- Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)
- Outcome
- Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · Permanent and primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: SE found more cost-effective than SW in permanent (Labib 2019) and primary teeth (Elhennawy 2021); not GRADE-rated. | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2020-07 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.