Deep Carious Lesions Management with Stepwise, Selective, or Non-Selective Removal in Permanent Dentition: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Objective: The goal of this systematic study was to investigate the effectiveness of selective, stepwise, and non-selective removal techniques for caries removal in permanent teeth with deep carious lesions. The primary focus was the results found comparing techniques for caries removal to check whether there was pulp exposition; the secondary was the materials used for pulp protection and clinical findings reported within the included studies. Methods: The search was performed in two databases (PubMed/MEDLINE and Web Of Science). The studies included in this systematic review were selected based on eligibility criteria. The inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (2) that compared the total removal of carious tissue with selective removal in permanent teeth with deep carious lesions, (3) with a follow-up period of at least 6 months, and (4) publications in English. Regarding the exclusion criteria, the following were not considered: (1) articles published in other languages, (2) articles that did not compare the different types of total/selective decay removal, and (3) articles published before January 2008. The risk of bias and the quality of the included studies were independently assessed by two reviewers using the RoB 2 tool. Results: 5 out of 105 potentially eligible studies were included. Regarding the teeth included in the study, three articles performed management only on permanent molars, while other studies also performed management on incisors/canines/premolars/molars. Management protocols were divided into nonselective caries removal and partial caries removal (selective/stepwise). The theory of non-selective caries removal was considered an excessive, unnecessarily invasive option and a form of outdated management, and selective removal was preferred. Conclusion: The selective removal technique presented a higher success rate and fewer incidences of pulpal exposure than total removal, after up to 18 months of follow up. Moreover, only one session seemed to be a better management choice compared to two sessions because the cavity re-opening procedure is more prone to pulp exposure and highly depends on patient commitment. Otherwise, at 5 years of follow up, there was no difference between selective removal and total removal in management longevity. In addition, there were also no differences between the success of the materials used for definitive restorations in teeth subjected to any of the techniques evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]