BMC oral health · 2026
Is there consensus for the treatment of initial to moderate caries lesions? - a Delphi first-round study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tassery Hervé, Banerjee Avijit, Turkun Lezize Sebnem, Miletic Ivana, Ceinos Romain, Peric Tamara, Pilliol Virginie, Terrer Elodie, Tardivo Delphine, Sauro Salvatore, Jaquot Bruno, Gurgan Sevil, Mahmood Mohammed Khalid, Daniel Stefano, Ballester Benoit, Manton David John, Slimani Amel
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The effectiveness of evidence-based operative recommendations is often complicated by variations in study design and a lack of use of standardized or validated materials / operative techniques. These gaps in evidence can lead to confusion and hinder clinicians' ability to apply guidelines in clinical practice. The objective of the presented paper is to compare the clinical recommendations from 17 experts regarding the management of early and moderate proximal and occlusal caries lesions.
METHODS: This paper employs the Delphi methodology to evaluate the expert recommendations presented and compare them with existing EBD guidelines.
RESULTS: This study highlights a clear hierarchy in the therapeutic choices made by experts. The highest compliance is seen with the initial, evidence-based treatment options, while responses diverge as more specific or novel options are introduced.
CONCLUSION: The variability in expert responses suggests a lack of clear and standardized guidelines for partially or non-cavitated lesions, a gap in EBD protocols that could benefit from further research and consensus-building.
METHODS: This paper employs the Delphi methodology to evaluate the expert recommendations presented and compare them with existing EBD guidelines.
RESULTS: This study highlights a clear hierarchy in the therapeutic choices made by experts. The highest compliance is seen with the initial, evidence-based treatment options, while responses diverge as more specific or novel options are introduced.
CONCLUSION: The variability in expert responses suggests a lack of clear and standardized guidelines for partially or non-cavitated lesions, a gap in EBD protocols that could benefit from further research and consensus-building.