Background: The chemomechanical method of caries removal is a modality that is non-invasive, cost-effective, and if some caries preventive measures could be added to them, then it might render the remaining dentin more resistant to future caries attacks also. Thereby, this study is conducted to evaluate the in vivo aspect of newly developed “one man army material—Apacaries gel”.
Aim and objective: To evaluate and compare the antimicrobial efficacy, efficiency, and pain perception of a chemomechanical caries removal agent (Apacaries gel) with a conventional method.
Design: Twenty children (aged 6–12 years) with bilateral occlusal caries making a sample size of 40 were included in the study. Group I: caries removal using rotary instruments and Group II: caries removal using Apacaries gel (n = 20 each). Caries removal time and pain perception were measured using a stopwatch and Wong–Baker Pain Scale. Dentin samples of both groups were taken before and after caries removal for microbiological analysis.
Statistical analysis used: The data were statistically analyzed using the Student's t-test to compare the two groups.
Results: There was a non-significant difference in bacterial count while a significant difference was seen in time consumption and pain perception in both methods of caries removal.
Conclusion: Chemomechanical caries removal (Apacaries gel) can be an effective clinical alternative treatment for caries removal in children.
Key messages: It is the only in vivo study on “Apacaries gel—a one man army” which eliciting the unique property of prevention of dental caries.
Singh S, Singh DJ, Jaidka S, et al. Comparative clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal agent Papacarie® with conventional method among rural population in India - in vivo study. Braz J Oral Sci 2011;10(3):193–198. DOI: 10.1007/s12663-011- 0189-x.
Anusavice KJ, Kincheloe JE. Comparison of pain associated with mechanical and chemomechanical removal of caries. J Dent Res 1987;66(11):1680–1683. DOI: 10.1177/00220345870660111501.
Juntavee A, Peerapattana J, Ratanathongkam A, et al. The antibacterial effects of apacaries gel on Streptococcus mutans - an in vitro study. Int J Clin Paediat Dentis 2014;7(2):77–81. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1241.
Arvidsson A, Liedberg B, Moller K, et al. Chemical and topographic analysis of dentine surfaces after Carisolv treatment. J Dentist 2002;30(2-3):67–75. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(01)00051-3.
Dammaschke T, Eickmeier M, Schafer E, et al. Effectiveness of carisolv with NaOCl and Ca(OH)2. Acta Odontolig Scandinav 2005;65(2):110–114. DOI: 10.1080/00016350510019810.
Juntavee A, Juntavee N, Peerapattana J, et al. Comparison of marginal microleakage of glass ionomer restorations in primary molars prepared by chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR), erbium:yttrium aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser and atraumatic restorative technique (ART). Int J Clin Pediat Dentis 2013;6(2):75–79. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1193.
Subramaniam P, Gihotra K. Antimicrobial efficacy of an indigenously prepared caries removing gel. Contemp Clin Dentis 2011;1(1):13–16. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.79294.
Divya G, Prasad MG, Kumar AAV, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of caries removal using polymer bur, stainless steel bur, carisolv, papacarie – an in vitro comparative study. J Clin Diagnos Res 2015;9(7):ZC42–ZC46. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12705.6202.
Matsumoto SFB, Motta LJ, Alfaya TA, et al. Assessment of chemomechanical removal of carious lesions using Papacarie Duo™: randomized longitudinal clinical trial. Indian J Dent Res 2013;24(4):488–492. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.118393.
Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, et al. Various methods of caries removal in children: a comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007(2):93–96. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388. 33456.