International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2014 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Conventional and RMGIC Restorations following Conventional and Chemomechanical Caries Removal: An in vitro Study

Chaitanya Pavuluri, Rekha Lakshmi Kamatham

Keywords : Carisolv, Microleakage, Chemomechanical caries removal, Resin-modified glass ionomer, Minimally invasive

Citation Information : Pavuluri C, Kamatham RL. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Conventional and RMGIC Restorations following Conventional and Chemomechanical Caries Removal: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014; 7 (3):172-175.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1259

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; The Author(s).


Background: Conventional caries removal involves use of high-speed handpiece. Current concepts of caries excavation in cavitated lesions consist of manual excavators. Principles of minimal invasive approach indicate the need to excavate only carious tissue. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage in conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cement restorations following conventional and chemomechanical caries removal. Design: Hundred class I carious human mandibular first molars were collected and divided into two groups: I and II (50 each). Each group was further divided into subgroups, i.e. (IA, IB and IIA, IIB). Caries was completely removed using conventional method in group one and chemomechanically in group two. The teeth in group IA, IIA are restored with conventional glass ionomer comment (GIC) and in group IB, IIB restored with resign-modified glass ionomer comments (RMGIC), followed by finishing and polishing. Subsequently, the specimens were thermocycled and then placed in dye solution. The teeth were sectioned through the restorations and evaluated for microleakage scores using a stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test. Results: Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in microleakage between the conventional GIC and RMGIC following conventional and chemomechanical caries removal method. Conclusion: Carisolv is minimally invasive and an effective alternative treatment for the removal of occlusal caries. How to cite this article: Pavuluri C, Nuvvula S, Kamatham RL, Nirmala SVSG. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Conventional and RMGIC Restorations following Conventional and Chemomechanical Caries Removal: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7(3):172-175.

PDF Share
  1. Subramaniam P, Girish Babu KL. Comparision of the antimicrobial efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal (CarisolvTM) with that of conventional drilling in reducing cariogenic flora. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32(2):215-220.
  2. Hosein T, Hasan A. Efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal with Carisolv. J College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan 2008;18(4):222-225.
  3. Hannig M. Effect of Carisolv solution on sound, demineralized and denatured dentin — an ultrastructural investigation. Clinical Oral Investigations 1999 Sep;3(3):155-159.
  4. Sterer N, Shavit L, et al. Effect of chemomechanical excavation (carisolv) on residual cariogenic bacteria. Int Dent SA 2007; 9(4):64-72.
  5. Mousavinenasab SM, Jafary M. Microleakage of composite restorations following chemomechanical and conventional caries removal. J Dent TUMS 2004;1(4):12-17.
  6. Yamada Y, Kimura Y, et al. Caries removal with Carisolv system: criteria evaluation and microleakage test. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;30(2):121-126.
  7. Daniela CG, Sergio L. Efficacy of carisolv as an adjunctive therapy to scaling and root planning on subgingival calculus removal. Braz Dent J 2006;17(3):213-218.
  8. Okida RC, Martins TM, Briso AL. In vitro evaluation of marginal leakage in bonded restorations with mechanical or chemical mechanical (Carisolv) removal of caries tissue. Braz Oral Res 2007 Apr-Jun;21(2):176-181.
  9. Hubel S, Mejare I. Conventional versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement for class II restorations in primary molars: A-3-year clinical study. Int J Paed Dent 2003;13(1):2-8.
  10. Prabhakar AR, Madan M, Raju OS. The marginal seal of a flowable composite, an injectable resin-modified glass ionomer and a compomer in primary molars: an in vitro study. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2003 June;21(2):45-48.
  11. Carisolv®. Manufacturer's instructions manual.
  12. Della Bona A, Caroline P, Rosa V. Effect of acid etching of glass ionomer cement surface on the microleakage of sandwich restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15(3):230-234.
  13. Prabhakar AR, Raju OS, Kurthukoti AJ, Satish V. Evaluation of the clinical behavior of resin modified glass ionomer cement on primary molars: a comparative one year study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 Feb;9(2):130-137.
  14. Elkholany NR, Abdelaziz KM, Zaghloul NM, Aboulenine N. Chemomechanical method: a valuable alternative for caries removal. J Minim Interv Dent 2009;2(4):248-259.
  15. Yip HK, Beeley JA, Stevenson AG. Mineral content of the dentin remaining after chemomechanical caries removal. Caries Res 1995;29(2):111-117.
  16. Munshi AK, Hegde AM, Shetty PK. Clinical evaluation of Carisolv in the chemomechanical removal of carious dentine. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2001;26(1):49-54.
  17. Rafique S, Fiske J, Banerjee A. Clinical trial of an air-abrasion/chemomechanical operative procedure for the restorative treatment of dental patients. Caries Res 2003;37(5):360-364.
  18. Beeley JA, Yip HK, Stevenson AG. Chemomechanical caries removal: as review of the techniques and latest developments. Brit Dent J 2000;188(8):427-430.
  19. Kevin JD, Segura A, Michael K, Erickson RL. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. JADA 1999 Oct;130(10):1459-1466.
  20. Qvista V, Manscherb E, Teglers PT. Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results. J Dent 2004;32(4):285-294.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.