Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Randomized Clinical Trials on Deep Carious Lesions: 5-Year Follow-up
Department of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4290-2283
Department of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Odontology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Journal of Dental Research, ISSN 0022-0345, E-ISSN 1544-0591, Vol. 96, no 7, p. 747-753Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Deep caries presents a dilemma in terms of which treatment that will render an optimal prognosis by maintaining pulp vitality with absence of apical pathology. Previously, 2 randomized clinical trials were performed testing the short-term effects of stepwise carious tissue removal versus nonselective carious removal to hard dentin with or without pulp exposure. The aim of this article was to report the 5-y outcome on these previously treated patients having radiographically well-defined carious lesions extending into the pulpal quarter of the dentin but with a well-defined radiodense zone between the carious lesion and the pulp. In this long-term study, 239 of 314 (76.2%) patients were analyzed. The stepwise removal group had a significantly higher proportion of success (60.2%) at 5-y follow-up compared with the nonselective carious removal to hard dentin group (46.3%) ( P = 0.031) when pulp exposures per se were included as failures. Pulp exposure rate was significantly lower in the stepwise carious removal group (21.2% vs. 35.5%; P = 0.014). Irrespective of pulp exposure status, the difference (13.3%) was still significant when sustained pulp vitality without apical radiolucency and unbearable pain was considered (95% confidence interval, 3.1-26.3, P = 0.045). After pulp exposure, only 9% ( n = 4) of the analyzed patients were assessed as successful, indicating that the prognosis is highly dubious following conventional pulp-capping procedures (direct pulp capping or partial pulpotomy) in deep carious lesions in adults. In conclusion, the stepwise carious removal group had a significantly higher proportion of pulps with sustained vitality without apical radiolucency versus nonselective carious removal of deep carious lesions in adult teeth at 5-y follow-up (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00187837 and NCT00187850).

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2017. Vol. 96, no 7, p. 747-753
Keywords [en]
caries treatment, clinical studies, clinical outcomes, dentin, Endodontics, operative dentistry
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-6158DOI: 10.1177/0022034517702620ISI: 000403934500006PubMedID: 28410008Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85021114644Local ID: 23305OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-6158DiVA, id: diva2:1403098
Available from: 2020-02-28 Created: 2020-02-28 Last updated: 2024-06-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopushttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0022034517702620

Authority records

Fransson, HelenaHedenbjörk-Lager, Anders

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Fransson, HelenaHedenbjörk-Lager, Anders
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
Journal of Dental Research
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 129 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf