4.1 Article

Treatment of deep caries lesions in adults: randomized clinical trials comparing stepwise vs. direct complete excavation, and direct pulp capping vs. partial pulpotomy

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES
Volume 118, Issue 3, Pages 290-297

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2010.00731.x

Keywords

caries removal; endodontics; pulp exposure; randomized clinical trial; stepwise excavation

Funding

  1. Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation
  2. Danish Regions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Less invasive excavation methods have been suggested for deep caries lesions. We tested the effects of stepwise vs. direct complete excavation, 1 yr after the procedure had been carried out, in 314 adults (from six centres) who had received treatment of a tooth with deep caries. The teeth had caries lesions involving 75% or more of the dentin and were centrally randomized to stepwise or direct complete excavation. Stepwise excavation resulted in fewer pulp exposures compared with direct complete excavation [difference: 11.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.2; 21.3)]. At 1 yr of follow-up, there was a statistically significantly higher success rate with stepwise excavation, with success being defined as an unexposed pulp with sustained pulp vitality without apical radiolucency [difference: 11.7%, 95% CI (0.5; 22.5)]. In a subsequent nested trial, 58 patients with exposed pulps were randomized to direct capping or partial pulpotomy. We found no significant difference in pulp vitality without apical radiolucency between the two capping procedures after more than 1 yr [31.8% and 34.5%; difference: 2.7%, 95% CI (-22.7; 26.6)]. In conclusion, stepwise excavation decreases the risk of pulp exposure compared with direct complete excavation. In view of the poor prognosis of vital pulp treatment, a stepwise excavation approach for managing deep caries lesions is recommended.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available