The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Operative caries management in adults and children
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of dental caries has traditionally involved removal of all soft demineralised dentine before a filling is placed. However, the benefits of complete caries removal have been questioned because of concerns about the possible adverse effects of removing all soft dentine from the tooth. Three groups of studies have also challenged the doctrine of complete caries removal by sealing caries into teeth using three different techniques. The first technique removes caries in stages over two visits some months apart, allowing the dental pulp time to lay down reparative dentine (the stepwise excavation technique). The second removes part of the dentinal caries and seals the residual caries into the tooth permanently (partial caries removal) and the third technique removes no dentinal caries prior to sealing or restoring (no dentinal caries removal). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal compared with complete caries removal for the management of dentinal caries in previously unrestored primary and permanent teeth. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 12 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 12 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 12 December 2012). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel group and split-mouth randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing stepwise, partial or no dentinal caries removal with complete caries removal, in unrestored primary and permanent teeth were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors extracted data independently and in triplicate and assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted where possible for information. We used standard methodological procedures exacted by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, four new trials were included bringing the total to eight trials with 934 participants and 1372 teeth. There were three comparisons: stepwise caries removal compared to complete one stage caries removal (four trials); partial caries removal compared to complete caries removal (three trials) and no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal (two trials). (One three-arm trial compared complete caries removal to both stepwise and partial caries removal.) Four studies investigated primary teeth, three permanent teeth and one included both. All of the trials were assessed at high risk of bias, although the new trials showed evidence of attempts to minimise bias.Stepwise caries removal resulted in a 56% reduction in incidence of pulp exposure (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.60, P < 0.00001, I(2) = 0%) compared to complete caries removal based on moderate quality evidence, with no heterogeneity. In these four studies, the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 34.7% in the complete caries removal group and 15.4% in the stepwise groups. There was also moderate quality evidence of no difference in the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58, P = 0.50, I(2) = 0%).Partial caries removal reduced incidence of pulp exposure by 77% compared to complete caries removal (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, P = 0.009, I(2) = 0%), also based on moderate quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity. In these two studies the mean incidence of pulp exposure was 21.9% in the complete caries removal groups and 5% in the partial caries removal groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.60, P = 0.15, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence), or restoration failure (one study showing no difference and another study showing no failures in either group, very low quality evidence).No dentinal caries removal was compared to complete caries removal in two very different studies. There was some moderate evidence of no difference between these techniques for the outcome of signs and symptoms of pulp disease and reduced risk of restoration failure favouring no dentinal caries removal, from one study, and no instances of pulp disease or restoration failure in either group from a second quasi-randomised study. Meta-analysis of these two studies was not performed due to substantial clinical differences between the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Stepwise and partial excavation reduced the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. Therefore these techniques show clinical advantage over complete caries removal in the management of dentinal caries. There was no evidence of a difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavatio
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues
Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., Higgins, J. P., Curtin, F., Worthington, H. V., & Vail, A. (2002) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/31.1.140 · Cited by 2,305
Cvek, M. (1978) · Journal of Endodontics · doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(78)80153-8 · Cited by 477
Sealing Caries in Primary Molars: Randomized Control Trial, 5-year Results
Innes, N. P. T., Evans, D. J. P., & Stirrups, D. R. (2011) · Journal of Dental Research · doi:10.1177/0022034511422064 · Cited by 225
Self-citationClinical studies concerning re-restoration of teeth
Elderton, R. J. (1990) · Advances in Dental Research · doi:10.1177/08959374900040010701 · Cited by 167
Cited by
Pitts, N. B., Zero, D. T., Marsh, P. D., Ekstrand, K., Weintraub, J. A., Ramos-Gomez, F., Tagami, J., Twetman, S., Tsakos, G., & Ismail, A. (2017) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2017.30 · Cited by 1,823
Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Carious Tissue Removal
Schwendicke, F., Frencken, J. E., Bjørndal, L., Maltz, M., Manton, D. J., Ricketts, D., Van Landuyt, K., Banerjee, A., Campus, G., Doméjean, S., et al. (2016) · Advances in Dental Research · doi:10.1177/0022034516639271 · Cited by 731
Self-citationManaging Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Terminology
Innes, N. P. T., Frencken, J. E., Bjørndal, L., Maltz, M., Manton, D. J., Ricketts, D., Van Landuyt, K., Banerjee, A., Campus, G., Doméjean, S., et al. (2016) · Advances in Dental Research · doi:10.1177/0022034516639276 · Cited by 384
Self-citationPreformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth
Innes, N. P., Ricketts, D., Chong, L. Y., Keightley, A. J., Lamont, T., & Santamaria, R. M. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005512.pub3 · Cited by 192
Self-citationDorri, M., Martinez-Zapata, M. J., Walsh, T., Marinho, V. C., Sheiham deceased, A., & Zaror, C. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008072.pub2 · Cited by 135
Metadata
- Authors
- Ricketts, D., Lamont, T., Innes, N. P., Kidd, E., & Clarkson, J. E.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-03-28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- CD003808-CD003808
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W1841037192
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 47.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Status
- Retracted
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Operative caries management in adults and children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd003808.pub3
- The paper
- Ricketts, D., Lamont, T., Innes, N. P., Kidd, E., & Clarkson, J. E. (2013). Operative caries management in adults and children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003808.pub3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.