Summary of findings 5. Selective carious tissue excavation compared to the Hall Technique for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions.
| SE compared to HT for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions | ||||||
| Population: treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, primary dentition Setting: secondary care/university and school setting Intervention: SE Comparison: HT | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with HT | Risk with SE | |||||
| Failure of therapy:SE vs HT – primary, cavitated but not deep Follow‐up 24 months | 90 per 1000 | 469 per 1000 (53 to 932) | OR 8.94 (0.57 to 139.67) | 586 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa | The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of HT compared to SE. |
| Failure of therapy:SE vs HT – primary, deep Follow‐up 24–36 months | 146 per 1000 | 250 per 1000 (89 to 531) | OR 1.95 (0.57 to 6.63) | 72 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowb | The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of HT compared to SE. |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; HT: Hall Technique; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SE: selective excavation. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
aDowngraded three levels for study limitations (high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and outcome assessors), inconsistency (I2 = 92%) and imprecision (low number of events, small sample size and very wide confidence intervals). bDowngraded three levels for study limitations (high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants, incomplete reporting and selective outcome reporting), and serious imprecision (single study, low number of events, small sample size and wide confidence intervals).