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: Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival)
- 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
- Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival)
Minimally invasive caries removal showed a marginally higher mean restoration success rate than conventional removal (83.6% vs 75.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U, p > 0.05); 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 Restoration/treatment success rate · Patients with deep carious lesions in permanent (mainly posterior) teeth · 1 to 5 years (follow-up varied by study) Minimally invasive caries removal showed a marginally higher mean restoration success rate than conventional removal (83.6% vs 75.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U, p > 0.05); certainty of evidence was not graded. Comparative Meta-Analysis of Minimally Invasive and Conventional Approaches for Caries Removal in Permanent… (2024) All outcomes | Mean success-rate percentage (unweighted study-level mean, 7 studies) MIT 83.6% vs CT 75.4% (Mann-Whitney U = 0.2, p > 0.05; not statistically significant) | 7 studies · 1305 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 |
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.