Title:
Partial caries removal may have advantages but limited evidence on restoration survival.

Abstract:
Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline via OVID, EMBASE via OVID; no restrictions on language or date of publication.
Parallel group and split mouth randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing stepwise, partial and no dentinal caries removal with complete caries removal in unrestored primary and permanent teeth were included in this review.
Title and abstract screening was by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third. Full texts of eligible studies were assessed by the team until consensus, and data extraction was by three reviewers independently and in triplicate. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias. Trial authors were contacted where possible .
Eight trials (all assessed as high risk of bias) with 934 participants and 1372 teeth were included in this updated review (Previously complete or ultraconservative removal of decayed tissue in unfilled teeth, Ricketts, 2006) with four new trials being included. There were a number of different comparisons in the trials (stepwise or partial or no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal) with one study including more than one of these comparisons. Four studies investigated primary teeth, three permanent teeth and one included both.For stepwise caries removal, (four studies), there was a 56% reduction in incidence of pulp exposure (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.60, P < 0.00001) compared to complete caries removal. The mean pulp exposure incidence was 34.7% in the complete caries removal group and 15.4% in the stepwise groups. There was no difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58, P = 0.50).In the two partial caries removal studies, the incidence of pulp exposure reduction was 77% for the partial caries removal group (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, P = 0.009) with a mean pulp exposure incidence of 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), or restoration failure (one study showing no difference and another study showing no failures in either group).There were two very different studies which looked at no dentinal caries removal compared to complete caries removal. There was some 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. There were no instances of pulp disease or restoration failure in either group from the second study. Meta-analysis of these two studies was not carried out because of the substantial clinical differences between the studies.
For management of dentinal caries, both stepwise and partial excavation showed clinical advantage over complete caries removal by reducing the incidence of pulp exposure in symptomless, vital, carious primary as well as permanent teeth. The review found no difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease between stepwise excavation and complete caries removal.There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in signs and symptoms of pulp disease or a difference in the risk of restoration failure with partial caries removal.For the two no dentinal caries removal studies, the one investigating permanent teeth found no difference in restoration failure and the one investigating primary teeth found a statistically significant difference in restoration failure favouring the intervention.Due to the short term follow-up, low reporting of patient centred outcomes and high risk of bias, further high quality, long-term clinical trials are still required to assess the most effective intervention.