Selective or stepwise carious tissue removal vs Non-selective or complete carious tissue removal: Proportion of dentists utilizing SE/SW for deep carious lesions
Across nine surveys of 4199 dentists, a pooled 53% (95% CI 44% to 62%) chose selective or stepwise (evidence-based) carious tissue removal for deep lesions in permanent teeth, with very high heterogeneity (I2=96%) and no formal certainty rating (ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Selective (incomplete) or stepwise carious tissue removal (SE/SW) vs Non-selective (complete) carious tissue removal Proportion of dentists utilizing SE/SW for deep carious lesions · Dentists managing deep carious lesions in permanent vital teeth · General and specialist dental practice; multiple countries (USA, Brazil, Norway, Germany, France) Across nine surveys of 4199 dentists, a pooled 53% (95% CI 44% to 62%) chose selective or stepwise (evidence-based) carious tissue removal for deep lesions in permanent teeth, with very high heterogeneity (I2=96%) and no formal certainty rating (ungraded). Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2016) All outcomes | Proportion (%) 53 [44, 62] | 9 studies · 4199 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes | Not specified | 8 | Not applicable |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.