Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the caries removal efficacy in terms of bacteriology and efficiency in terms of time taken by conventional and smart burs. Materials and methods: A total of 40 extracted permanent molars with occlusal caries were selected for this study. These teeth were split at the center of carious lesion buccolingually, in order to obtain two similar halves. Thus, 80 samples were obtained in this way and were randomly divided into 2 groups of 40 samples each. Caries was removed using conventional burs in group I and polymer bur Smartprep (SS white) in group II. The time involved in caries removal was measured for both the groups. After excavation of all carious lesions, the samples were decalcified, dehydrated, and embedded in paraffin wax from which thin sections of 5 μm were obtained, which were histologically evaluated for bacterial presence under a light microscope. Results: An intergroup comparison between conventional bur (group I) and smart bur (group II) showed a statistically nonsignificant difference in terms of the presence of microorganisms after caries removal with a p value of 0.073638 (p > 0.05). However, the time taken for caries removal was significantly more for smart burs than diamond burs with a p value of 0.001 (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The polymer burs were found to be as effective as the conventional burs in terms of microbial presence after caries removal, but are more time-consuming than conventional burs.
Fusayama T. Two layers of carious dentin: Diagnosis and treatment. Oper Dent 1979;4:63–70.
Ogushi K, Fusayama T. Electron microscopic structure of two layers of carious dentin. J Dent Res 1975;54:1019–1026. DOI: 10.1177/00220345750540050301.
Usha C, Ranjani R. Comparative evaluation of two commercially available polymer burs for their efficacy on dentinal caries removal – Split tooth study using polarized light microscopy. J Sci Dent 2012;2(2):66–69.
Dammaschke T, Rodenberg TN, et al. Efficiency of the polymer bur smartprep compared with conventional tungsten carbide bud bur in dentin caries excavation. Oper Dent 2006;31(2):256–260. DOI: 10.2341/05-24.
US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Occupational exposure to blood-borne pathogens; final rule. Fed Reg 1991;56:64003–64182.
Bancroft JD, Stevens A. Theory and practice of histological techniques. 1990;3:112–117.
Shakya VK, Chandra A, et al. A comparative evaluation of dentin caries removal with polymer bur and conventional burs – An in vitro study. Open J Stomatol 2012;2:12–15. DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2012.21002.
Banerjee A, Watson TF, et al. Dentine caries excavation: A review of current clinical techniques. Br Dent J 2000;188:476–482. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800515.
Freedman G, Goldstep F. Polymer preparation instruments. New paradigm in selective dentin removal. Dent Today 2003;22(4):58–61.
Isik EE, Olmez A, et al. A microbiological assessment of polymer and conventional carbide burs in caries. Pediatr Dent 2010;32: 316–323.
Aswathi KK, Rani PS, et al. Comparison of efficacy of caries removal using polymer bur and chemomechanical caries removal agent: A clinical and microbiological assessment – An in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017;35:6–13. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388. 199232.
Divya G, Prasad MG, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of caries removal using polymer bur, stainless steel bur, carisolv, papacarie – An in vitro comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(7):42–46. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12705.6202.
Prabhakar A, Kiran NK. Clinical evaluation of polyamide polymer burs for selective carious dentin removal. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009;10(4):26–34.