Primary study · included by 1 review
Comparative evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of chemomechanical (Papacarie) and conventional mechanical caries removal methods in treatment of carious primary molars: a randomized controlled clinical study.
Akindele 2025 · Akindele Bimbola Opeyemi, Orenuga O O, Olatosi O O, et al. · BMC oral health · 2025
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Pain (binary: no pain or comfort) Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | OR 3.35 [1.01, 11.17] | 5 studies · 260 participants | High |
Operative time Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | SMD 1.89 [0.99, 2.79] | 10 studies | GRADE not reported |
Operative time Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | SMD 2.75 [0.78, 4.73] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Pain, no pain (comfort) rate Any chemomechanical caries removal gel (BRIX3000, Carisolv, Carie Care, Papacarie/Papacarie DUO) vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (rotary bur, curette/spoon excavator or polymer bur) | OR 2.85 [1.61, 5.04] | 5 studies · 260 participants | High |
Operative time Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), any agent vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (bur, curette or polymer bur) | SMD 2.1 [1.31, 2.89] | 14 studies · 1209 participants | Moderate |
1 including review in total.