Literature DB >> 30361670

Caries removal in primary teeth using Papacarie.

Falk Schwendicke1.   

Abstract

Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Web of Science were searched. Whether any limits on language were applied remains unclear. Studies published up to January 2018 were included.Study selectionTwo reviewers independently selected randomised or controlled clinical trials (RCTs, CCTs) investigating carious tissue removal using Papacarie, an enzyme-based chemomechanical method, versus conventional' techniques in primary molars in children or adolescents.Data extraction and synthesisData were abstracted independently by two reviewers and risk of bias assessed. Three outcomes, bacterial counts after carious tissue removal (measure: log10 colony-forming units [CFU]), pain (measured on Wong-Baker scale) and the time needed for carious tissue removal (in seconds), were submitted to meta-analysis (effect estimate: weighted means).ResultsSix RCTs and four CCTs, published 2009-2016, were included. After Papacarie-based removal, fewer bacteria remained compared with conventional treatment (MD 0.57 log10 CFU, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.09, based on two studies). Pain was also significantly lower in the Papacarie group (-1.01, -1.72 to -0.30, based on three studies). Papacarie-based removal took significantly longer (200.8 seconds, 152.5 to 249.1, based on seven studies).ConclusionsPapacarie-based carious tissue removal is efficacious for bacteria removal, and exerts significantly less pain than conventional removal. However, treatment times are longer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30361670     DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401321

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evid Based Dent        ISSN: 1462-0049


  4 in total

1.  Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials on Chemomechanical Caries Removal.

Authors:  H H H Hamama; C K Y Yiu; M F Burrow; N M King
Journal:  Oper Dent       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.440

Review 2.  The effect of dental sealants on bacteria levels in caries lesions: a review of the evidence.

Authors:  Ella M Oong; Susan O Griffin; William G Kohn; Barbara F Gooch; Page W Caufield
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.634

Review 3.  Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies.

Authors:  Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Frida Emanuelsson; Ann Sofia Skou Thomsen; Jørgen Hilden; Stig Brorson
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-05-30       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 4.  Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies.

Authors:  Matthew J Page; Julian P T Higgins; Gemma Clayton; Jonathan A C Sterne; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jelena Savović
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total
  2 in total

1.  Worldwide research trends on the use of chemical-mechanical caries removal products over the years: a critical review.

Authors:  T F Souza; M L Martins; M B Magno; J M Vicente-Gomila; A Fonseca-Gonçalves; L C Maia
Journal:  Eur Arch Paediatr Dent       Date:  2022-07-13

2.  Treatment time, pain experience and acceptability of the technique for caries removal in primary teeth using the ART approach with or without Brix3000™ papain gel: a preliminary randomised controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  T F de Souza; M L Martins; C M Tavares-Silva; A Fonseca-Gonçalves; L C Maia
Journal:  Eur Arch Paediatr Dent       Date:  2021-10-02
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.