Stepwise excavation (two-stage caries removal, re-entry after an interval) vs Non-selective or complete carious tissue removal: Pulp exposure during caries removal
- Population
- Children (3-11 years) with symptomless, vital dentine caries in primary molars
- Intervention
- Stepwise excavation (two-stage caries removal, re-entry after an interval)
- Comparison
- Non-selective or complete carious tissue removal
- Outcome
- Pulp exposure during caries removal
Stepwise excavation reduced the reported risk of pulp exposure by 69% versus complete caries removal (RR 0.31; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Stepwise excavation (two-step caries removal) vs Non-selective (complete) caries removal to hard dentine Pulp exposure during caries removal · Children (3-11 years) with symptomless, vital dentine caries in primary molars · 12 months, Stepwise excavation vs complete caries removal (primary teeth) Stepwise excavation reduced the reported risk of pulp exposure by 69% versus complete caries removal (RR 0.31; ungraded). Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) All outcomes | RR 0.31 [0.17, 0.57] | 262 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. 2022 All outcomes | August 2020 | 35 | Low / Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Stepwise excavation (two-stage caries removal, re-entry after an interval) vs Complete caries removal · Patients with carious teeth, affecting any tooth surface(s), in unrestored primary and… · 1 review
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.