evidence/gaps
Primary study · included by 1 review

Self-Limiting versus Conventional Caries Removal: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Ali 2018 · Ali A H, Koller G, Foschi F, et al. · Journal of dental research · 2018

PubMed 29738286doi:10.1177/0022034518769255Comparative Study; Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Trial PICO

Not extracted yet. Trial-level population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and design will appear here after the trial extraction run. Until then, the reviews below describe the study.

Results

Not extracted yet. Per-trial results (events, means, effect and weight as each review's forest plot reports them) will appear here after the trial extraction run.

Included by

Comparative Meta-Analysis of Minimally Invasive and Conventional Approaches for Caries Removal in Permanent Dentition.
Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2024 · cited as Ali 2018 · Table 1 (Articles meta-analyzed); success-rate and pulp-exposure analyses; Figures 3-5; ref 42
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
Pulp exposure rate
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 · 1 to 5 years (follow-up varied by study)
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 participantsUngraded

1 including review in total.