Primary study · included by 1 review

Selective versus stepwise removal of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a randomised controlled trial from Egypt-an interim analysis.

Labib 2019 · Labib Mohamed E, Hassanein Olfat E, Moussa Makeen, et al. · BMJ open · 2019

PubMed 31530615 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030957Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Equivalence Trial

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 Labib 2019 · Table 1 (Articles meta-analyzed); success-rate and pulp-exposure analyses; Figures 3-5; ref 41

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
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 participants	Ungraded

1 including review in total.