Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 19–26 | Cite as

A comparative clinical study of various methods of caries removal in children

  • H. K. SoniEmail author
  • A. Sharma
  • P. B. Sood
Original Scientific Article

Abstract

Aim

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of caries removal, time taken and to evaluate the pain threshold experienced by children during various caries removal methods.

Methods

One hundred and twenty patients aged between 4 and 14 years requiring dental restorations were selected. Caries removal was completed using an air-rotor, hand instruments, Carisolv and polymer burs. The efficacy, time taken and pain thresholds were evaluated during caries removal by Ericsson et al. scale, visual analogue scale and verbal pain scale, respectively.

Statistical analysis

Data was collected and statistically analysed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Post Hoc comparison by Bonferroni method. The skewed data was analysed amongst groups by applying Kruskal–Wallis test followed by probability adjustment by Mann–Whitney test.

Result

These results indicated that the efficacy of caries removal was highest with air-rotor and was least by the hand instrument, whilst Carisolv® was least painful and the most time-consuming method.

Conclusions

Caries removal with polymer burs and Carisolv were found to be as effective in caries removal and could be considered as alternatives to painful procedures as air-rotor in management of caries especially in children.

Keywords

Carisolv Efficacy Time taken Pain Polymer burs 

References

  1. Allen KL, Salgado TL, Janal MN, Thompson VP. Removing carious dentine using a polymer instrument without anesthesia versus a carbide bur with anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136:643–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anusavice KJ, Kincheloe JE. Comparison of pain associated with mechanical and chemomechanical removal of caries. J Dent Res. 1987;66:1680–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee A, Kidd EAM, Watson TF. Invitro evaluation of five alternative methods of carious dentine excavation. Caries Res. 2000;34:144–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergmann J, Leitao J, Kultje C, Bergmann D, Clode MJ. Removing dentine caries in deciduous teeth with Carisolv: a randomized, controlled, prospective study with six-month follow up, comparing chemomechanical treatment with drilling. Oral Health Prevent Dent. 2005;3:105–11.Google Scholar
  5. Bussadori SK, Castro LC, Galvao AC. Papain Gel: a new chemomechanical caries removal agent. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2005;30(20):115–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Celiberti P, Francescut P, Lussi A. Performance of four dentine excavation methods in deciduous teeth. Caries Res. 2006;40:117–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dammaschke T, Rodenberg TN, Schafer E, Ott KHR. Efficiency of the polymer bur smartprep compared with conventional tungsten carbide bud bur in dentine caries excavation. Oper Dent. 2006;31(2):256–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, et al. Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemomechanical removal of caries. Caries Res. 1999;33:171–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fure S, Lingstrom P, Birkhed D. Evaluation of carisolv™ for the chemo-mechanical removal of primary root caries in vivo. Caries Res. 2000;34:275–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fusayama T. Two layers of carious dentine: diagnosis and treatment. Oper Dent. 1979;4:63–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Habib CM, Kronman J, Goldman M. A chemical evaluation of collagen and hydroxyproline after treatment with GK-101 (N-chloroglycine). Pharmacol Ther Dent. 1975;2:209–15.Google Scholar
  12. Kakaboura A, Masouras C, Staikou O, Vougiouklakis G. A comparative clinical study on the carisolv caries removal methods. Quintessence Int. 2003;34(4):269–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kochhar GK, Srivastava N, Pandit IK, Gugnani N, Gupta M. An evaluation of different caries removal techniques in primary teeth: a comparative clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;36(1):5–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lozano-Chourio MA, Zambrano O, Gonzalez H, Quero M. Clinical randomized controlled trial of chemomechanical caries removal. (Carisolv™). Int J Pediatr Dent. 2006;16:161–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maragakis GM, Hahn P, Hellwig E. Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal in primary molars and its acceptance by patients. Caries Res. 2001;35:205–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Munshi AK, Hegde AM, Shetty PK. Clinical evaluation of carisolv in the chemo-mechanical removal of carious dentine. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2001;26(1):49–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Nadanosky P, Carnerio CF, Souza de Mello F. Removal of caries using only hand instruments: a comparison of mechanical and chemomechanical methods. Caries Res. 2001;35:384–9.Google Scholar
  18. Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M, Verma L. Various methods of caries removal in children: a comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2007;25(2):93–6.Google Scholar
  19. Peric T, Markovic D, Petrovic B. Clinical evaluation of a chemomechanical method for caries removal in children and adolescents. Acta Odontol Scand. 2009;67:277–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peters MC, Flamenbaum MH, Eboda NN, Feigal RJ, Inglehart MR. Chemomechanical caries removal in children-efficacy and efficiency. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(12):1658–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rafique S, Fiske J, Banerjee A. A clinical trial of an air abrasion chemomechanical operative procedure for restorative treatment of dental patients. Caries Res. 2003;37(5):360–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental Caries. Lancet. 2007;369:51–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yazici AR, Baseren M, Gokalp S. The invitro performance of laser fluorescence and caries-detector dye for detecting residual carious dentine during tooth preparation. Quintessence Int. 2005;36(6):417–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Yip HK, Stevenson AG, Beeley JA. An improved reagent for chemomechanical caries removal in permanent and deciduous teeth: an invitro study. J Dent. 1995;23:197–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pedodontics and Preventive DentistryI.T.S Centre for Dental Studies and ResearchGhaziabadIndia
  2. 2.New DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations