International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2021 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Chemo-mechanical and Rotary-mechanical Methods in Removal of Caries with Respect to Time Consumption and Pain Perception in Pediatrc Dental Patients

Ashish Katiyar, Sukriti Gupta, Kirtija Gupta, Karuna Sharma, Bhoomika Tripathi, Nitin Sharma

Keywords : Chemomechanical caries removal, Early childhood caries, Facial pain rating scale

Citation Information : Katiyar A, Gupta S, Gupta K, Sharma K, Tripathi B, Sharma N. Comparative Evaluation of Chemo-mechanical and Rotary-mechanical Methods in Removal of Caries with Respect to Time Consumption and Pain Perception in Pediatrc Dental Patients. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021; 14 (1):115-119.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1896

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: • To compare the clinical efficiency in removal of caries by the two different methods of caries removal. • To compare the treatment time between chemomechanical and rotary mechanical methods of caries removal. • To compare the pain perception of the patient during the two different methods (chemomechanical and rotary mechanical) of dentin caries removal. Materials and methods: The Carisolv system for caries removal, consisting of a solvent gel and a specially designed hand instrument, as compared to the conventional method of caries removal, i.e., Airotor. Sixty patients in the age-group of 6–14 years, having Black\'s class I dentinal caries with the cavity in the molars, were enrolled for the study. Results: The time for caries removal with Carisolv and Airotor was, respectively, 7.17 ± 1.57 and 8.00 ± 1.56 minutes. Thus, the mean time taken was also significantly higher in group II as compared to group I (t = 4.805; p < 0.001).


PDF Share
  1. Fusayama T. Two layers of carious dentin: diagnosis and treatment. Oper Dent 1979;4(2):63–70.
  2. Magalhaes CS, Moreira AN, Campos WD, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of chemomechanical carious dentin removal. Braz Dent J 2006;17(1):63–67. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402006000100014.
  3. Bulut G, Zekioglu O, Eronat C, et al. Effect of Carisolv™ on the human dental pulp: a histological study. J Dent 2004;32(4):309–314. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.004.
  4. Cederlund A, Lindskog S, Blomlöf J. Efficacy of Carisolv assisted caries excavation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1999;19(5):465–469.
  5. Zinck JH, McInnes-Ledoux P, Capdeboscq C, et al. Chemomechanical caries removal: a clinical evaluation. J Oral Rehabil 1988;15(1):23–33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1988.tb00143.x.
  6. Chaussain-Miller C, Decup F, Domejean-Orliaguet S, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Carisolv TM chemomechanical caries removal technique according to the site/stage concept, a revised caries classification system. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7(1):32–37. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-003-0196-5.
  7. Horiguchi S, Yamada T, Inokoshi S, et al. Selective caries removal with air abrasion. Oper Dent 1998;23(5):236–243.
  8. Banerjee A, Kidd EA, Watson TF. Scanning electron microscopic observations of human dentine after mechanical caries excavation. J Dent 2000;28(3):179–186. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00064-0.
  9. Nielsen AG, Richards JR, Wolcott RB. Ultrasonic dental cutting instrument: I. J Am Dent Assoc 1955;50(4):392–399. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1955.0077.
  10. Bassi G, Chawla S, Patel M. The Nd:YAG laser in caries removal. Br Dent J 1994;177(7):248–250. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808576.
  11. Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, et al. Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemo-mechanical removal of caries. A multi-centre study. Caries Res 1999;33(3):171–177. DOI: 10.1159/000016513.
  12. Baneerjee A, Kidd EA, Watson TF. In vitro evaluation of five alternative methods of carious dentin excavation. Caries Res 2000;34(2):144–150. DOI: 10.1159/000016582.
  13. Mazumdar P, Das UK. Chemo-mechanical methods of caries removal-exploring new avenues in dental care. J Conserv Dent 2002;5:7–12.
  14. Motta JL, Martins DM, Porta KP, et al. Aesthetic restoration of deciduous anterior teeth after removal of carious tissue with papacarie®. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20(1):117–120. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.49060.
  15. Sudsangiam S, Van Noort R. Do dentin bond strength tests serve a useful purpose. J Adhes Dent 1999;1(1):57–67.
  16. Pashley DH. Dynamics of the pulpodentin complex. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1996;7(2):104–133. DOI: 10.1177/10454411960070020101.
  17. Johnson GH, Craig RG. Accuracy of addition silicones as a function of technique. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55(2):197–203. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90342-2.
  18. Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, et al. Relationship between surface area for adhesion andtensile bond strength: evaluation of a micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater 1994;10(4):236–240. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(94)90067-1.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.