What is the best caries removal strategy for primary molars?

Abstract

Aim This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the efficacy of different caries removal techniques: complete caries removal (CCR), selective caries removal (SCR) and stepwise caries removal (SWR) for deep carious lesions in vital primary teeth.

Data sources The design of this review followed the PRISMA guidance (http://www.prisma-statement.org/). Relevant studies were identified using electronic databases (PubMed [Medline], Cochrane Library, EMBASE) and finally reference lists were screened. The US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (NIHTR; http://clinicaltrials.gov) and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP; http://apps.who.int/trialsearch) were used to help assess publication bias, as it was not possible to test funnel plot asymmetry. Duplicates were located and eliminated using EndNote X7 programme.

Study selection To be included, studies had to be published RCTs comparing SCR or SWR with CCR as caries removal strategies for deep carious lesions in vital primary teeth. The outcomes were pulp exposure, pulpo-periodontal complications (clinical and radiological failures) and/or restorative failures. RCTs applying these caries removal techniques were excluded if one of the other trial arms did not involve caries removal (that is, Hall Technique, therapeutic sealing of cavity lesions). Initially, 1,374 potentially eligible articles were identified, out of which 15 (English or French language only) were selected for full-text screening, which included ten relevant references corresponding to eight studies.

Data extraction and synthesis Two authors independently extracted data using a piloted data extraction sheet, with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements. The authors performed conventional intention-to-treat and per-protocol meta-analyses, and calculated odds ratios (ORs) as effect estimates in the random-effects model, using Revman5.

Results The eight included RCTs were conducted between 1977 and 2018. They include 669 patients and 824 teeth, with follow-up ranging from four weeks to 24 months. Collective results showed reduced risk of pulp exposure after SCR (OR: 0.10, 95% CI [0.04, 0.25]) or SWR (OR: 0.20, 95% CI [0.09, 0.44]), compared with CCR. There was a higher risk of composite restorative failure (OR: 2.61, 95% CI [1.05, 6.49]) using United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria, after SCR was compared with CCR only in intention-to-treat analysis. However, when comparing the risk of clinical or radiographic failure of pulpo-periodontal complications, no difference was found between SCR, CCR or SWR.

Conclusion The conclusions of the paper are that there is a significant decrease in pulp exposure risk with SCR and SWR in comparison with CCR. However, there is a need for further studies with less risk of bias powered to report on the long-term outcomes of pulpo-periodontal health and restoration longevity.