Minimally invasive caries removal (MIT): selective removal to soft dentin, self-limiting chemomechanical removal, or partial/incomplete caries removal vs Conventional caries removal (CT): selective removal to firm dentin, stepwise excavation, or complete caries removal: Pulp exposure rate
- Population
- Patients with deep carious lesions in permanent (mainly posterior) teeth
- Intervention
- Minimally invasive caries removal (MIT): selective removal to soft dentin, self-limiting chemomechanical removal, or partial/incomplete caries removal
- Comparison
- Conventional caries removal (CT): selective removal to firm dentin, stepwise excavation, or complete caries removal
- Outcome
- Pulp exposure rate
Minimally invasive caries removal was associated with a lower mean pulp exposure rate than conventional removal (1.2% vs 8.1%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Wilcoxon, p = 0.068); certainty of evidence was not graded.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Minimally invasive caries removal (MIT): selective removal to soft dentin, self-limiting chemomechanical removal, or partial/incomplete caries removal vs Conventional caries removal (CT): selective removal to firm dentin, stepwise excavation, or complete caries removal Pulp exposure rate · Patients with deep carious lesions in permanent (mainly posterior) teeth · 1 to 5 years (follow-up varied by study) Minimally invasive caries removal was associated with a lower mean pulp exposure rate than conventional removal (1.2% vs 8.1%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Wilcoxon, p = 0.068); certainty of evidence was not graded. Comparative Meta-Analysis of Minimally Invasive and Conventional Approaches for Caries Removal in Permanent… (2024) All outcomes | Mean pulp-exposure percentage (unweighted study-level mean, 4 studies) MIT 1.2% vs CT 8.1% (Wilcoxon = 0.0, p = 0.068; not statistically significant) | 4 studies · 791 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comparative Meta-Analysis of Minimally Invasive and Conventional Approaches for Caries Removal in Permanent Dentition. 2024 All outcomes | January 2008 to December 2022 (publication coverage period; exact search-run date not reported) | 11 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Selective versus stepwise removal of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a randomised controlled trial from Egypt-an interim analysis. · 2019 · included by 1 of these review
- Self-Limiting versus Conventional Caries Removal: A Randomized Clinical Trial. · 2018 · included by 1 of these review
- Outcomes of Partial and Complete Caries Excavation in Permanent Teeth: A 18 Month Clinical Study. · 2018 · included by 1 of these review
- Longevity and associated risk factors in adhesive restorations of young permanent teeth after complete and selective caries removal: a… · 2017 · included by 1 of these 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.