International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Clinical and Microbiological Assessment of Carisolv and Polymer Bur for Selective Caries Removal in Primary Molars

Mohamed A Asal, Abeer M Abdellatif, Hossam E Hammouda

Keywords : Carisolv, Chemomechanical caries removal, Minimally invasive dentistry, Polymer burs, Selective caries removal

Citation Information : Asal MA, Abdellatif AM, Hammouda HE. Clinical and Microbiological Assessment of Carisolv and Polymer Bur for Selective Caries Removal in Primary Molars. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021; 14 (3):357-363.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1956

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: To assess the efficacy of the new Carisolv system and Polymer bur (SmartbursII®) for selective caries removal in primary molars clinically and microbiologically, compared with the conventional mechanical method. Materials and methods: Sixty children with class I active carious lesions were selected. The children were randomly allocated to three groups (n = 20) according to the caries removal method. Under rubber dam isolation, dentin samples were taken before and after caries removal for microbial culture. Time spent in each technique was recorded. The clinical efficacy of caries removal was verified using caries detector dye. Patient satisfaction toward the treatment was evaluated using a facial image scale. Results: The median of caries detector dye scores was significantly lower in the conventional group compared to others (p value < 0.05). The mean time for caries removal was the longest with Carisolv (p value < 0.05). The median of facial image scale scores was significantly higher in the conventional group compared with others (p value < 0.05). The mean total viable bacterial count after caries removal was significantly higher in polymer bur group compared with others (p value < 0.05). While, there was no significant difference between Carisolv and conventional groups (p value > 0.05). Conclusion: The clinical efficacy of caries removal was highest with the mechanical method. Carisolv took the longest time for caries removal. Patient satisfaction was higher with Carisolv and polymer bur than the mechanical method. The antimicrobial efficacy of Carisolv and the mechanical method was higher than the polymer bur. Clinical significance: Carisolv is a viable alternative to the mechanical method in the management of dental caries, especially in children. Further studies are needed to assess the efficacy of caries removal by SmartbursII®.

  1. Hamama HH, Yiu CK, Burrow MF. Caries management: a journey between black's principals and minimally invasive concepts. Int J Oral Sci 2015;2(8):120–125. DOI: 10.19070/2377-8075-1500026.
  2. Avinash A, Grover S, Koul M, et al. Comparison of mechanical and chemomechanical methods of caries removal in deciduous and permanent teeth: a SEM study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2012;30(2):115. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.99982.
  3. Banerjee A, Watson T, Kidd E. Conservative dentistry: dentine caries excavation: a review of current clinical techniques. Br Dent J 2000;188(9):476. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800515.
  4. Banerjee A, Watson T, Kidd E. Dentine caries: take it or leave it? Dent Update 2000;27(6):272–276. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2000.27.6.272.
  5. Hamama H, Yiu C, Burrow M. Current update of chemomechanical caries removal methods. Aust Dent J 2014;59(4):446–456. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12214.
  6. Murdoch-Kinch CA, McLean ME. Minimally invasive dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134(1):87–95. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0021.
  7. Munshi AK, Hegde AM, Shetty PK. Clinical evaluation of Carisolv in the chemico-mechanical removal of carious dentin. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2001;26(1):49–54. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.26.1.lr48727276478461.
  8. 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.
  9. Allen KL, Salgado TL, Janal MN, et al. Removing carious dentin using a polymer instrument without anesthesia versus a carbide bur with anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136(5):643–651. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0237.
  10. Kuboki Y, Liu C-F, Fusayama T. Mechanism of differential staining in carious dentin. J Dent Res 1983;62(6):713–714. DOI: 10.1177/00220345830620060401.
  11. Prabhakar A, Kiran N. Clinical evaluation of polyamide polymer burs for selective carious dentin removal. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009;10(4):26–34. DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-10-4-26.
  12. Pandit I, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, et al. Various methods of caries removal in children: a comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007;25(2):93. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.33456.
  13. Kochhar GK, Srivastava N, Pandit I, et al. An evaluation of different caries removal techniques in primary teeth: a comparitive clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;36(1):5–10. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.36.1.u2421l4j68847215.
  14. Soni H, Sharma A, Sood P. A comparative clinical study of various methods of caries removal in children. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2015;16(1):19–26. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-014-0140-1.
  15. Tonami K-I, Araki K, Mataki S, et al. Effects of chloramines and sodium hypochlorite on carious dentin. J Med Dent Sci 2003;50(2):139–146. DOI: 10.11480/jmds.500201.
  16. Anderson MH, Loesche WJ, Charbeneau GT. Bacteriologic study of a basic fuchsin caries-disclosing dye. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54(1):51–55. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(85)80069-x.
  17. Yip H, Stevenson A, Beeley J. The specificity of caries detector dyes in cavity preparation. Br Dent J 1994;176(11):417. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808470.
  18. Iwami Y, Shimizu A, Narimatsu M, et al. The relationship between the color of carious dentin stained with a caries detector dye and bacterial infection. Oper Dent 2005;30(1):83–89.
  19. Divya G, Prasad MG, Vasa AAK, 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):ZC42. DOI: 10.7860/jcdr/2015/12705.6202.
  20. Medioni E, Rocca J-P, Fornaini C, et al. Histological evaluation of three techniques for caries removal. J Oral Sci 2016;58(4):583–589. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.16-0225.
  21. Chowdhry S, Saha S, Samadi F, et al. Recent vs conventional methods of caries removal: a comparative in vivo study in pediatric patients. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;8(1):6. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005- 1275.
  22. Hassan AF, Yadav G, Tripathi AM, et al. A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of different caries excavation techniques in reducing the cariogenic flora: an in vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(3):214. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1366.
  23. Azrak B, Callaway A, Grundheber A, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal (Carisolv™) with that of conventional excavation in reducing the cariogenic flora. Int J Pediatr Dent 2004;14(3):182–191. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263x.2004.00535.x.
  24. Subramaniam P, Girish Babu K, Neeraja G. Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal (Carisolv™) with that of conventional drilling in reducing cariogenic flora. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32(3):215–219. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.32.3.1r08w6k1478865u7.
  25. Ercan E, Özekinci T, Atakul F, et al. Antibacterial activity of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite in infected root canal: in vivo study. J Endod 2004;30(2):84–87. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200402000-00005.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.