Worldwide research trends on the use of chemical–mechanical caries removal products over the years: a critical review

BACKGROUND: Chemical–mechanical caries removal (CMCR) products are in constant evolution and were recommended during the COVID-19 pandemic as substitutes for conventional caries removal. AIM: Characterize the worldwide scientific literature about CMCR products, over the years, by means of a critical review. DESIGN: Electronic search was performed on Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Lilacs, and Embase up to November 2020. Year, journal, country of authors, and type of study were the data extracted from the retrieved studies. Additional data of the clinical studies and systematic reviews were investigated. RESULTS: 2221 records were identified, 397 selected. 2011–2020 period concentrates higher number of publications (n = 169), in the Journal of Dental Research (n = 51), developed in Brazil (n = 45) and India (n = 44). Most studies were in vitro (n = 211) and clinical trials (n = 101). Carisolv™ (n = 48) and Papacarie Duo Gel™ (n = 33) were the most used products, prescript in isolated usage (n = 101), and compared with drills (n = 77). CMCR were more studied in primary teeth (n = 78), receiving glass ionomer cement (GIC) (n = 51) as restorative material. The most evaluated outcomes were time spent (n = 48) and pain (n = 41). Clinical application of CMCR takes more time than other techniques, but can also reduce patient anxiety, pain, and need for anesthesia. CONCLUSION: In vitro and clinical studies with CMCR products have been increasing, mostly carried out in developing countries, evaluating Carisolv™ and Papacarie Duo Gel™. Clinical studies tend to evaluate the time spent and pain compared to drills for removing caries in primary teeth, posteriorly restored with GIC. CMCR clinical application reduces anxiety, pain, and need for anesthesia, despite increase treatments’ time.