Chemomechanical caries removal method versus mechanical caries removal methods in clinical and community-based setting: A comparative in vivo study

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of various caries removal techniques in mandibular primary molars using Smart Burs, atraumatic restorative technique (ART) (mechanical caries removal) and Carie-care (chemomechanical caries removal [CMCR]) among primary school children in clinical and community-based settings. Materials and Methods: A total of 80 carious primary mandibular molars were selected for the study from the dental clinic and community. They were equally assigned to four groups according to caries removal technique and also by the operating site. In Group 1, caries was removed using Carie-care in the dental clinic and in Group 2, with Smart Burs in the dental clinic. In Group 3, caries was removed using Carie-care in the field and in Group 4, with the ART in the field. The time taken for caries removal, the efficacy of caries removal and patient acceptance were evaluated with different caries removal techniques. Statistical Analysis: The obtained data were subjected to statistical analysis by ANOVA test. Results: In clinical settings, Carie-care was time-consuming but was more efficient with increased acceptance than Smart Burs and the result was found to be significant statistically (P < 0.05). In community-based settings, Carie-care was more efficient, less time consuming, and showed an increased acceptance when compared to atraumatic restorative treatment and the result was found to be significant statistically (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The CMCR technique was superior to the mechanical caries removal technique in primary teeth among school children in terms of time, efficacy, and acceptance in both clinical- and community-based settings.

Key words:

Atraumatic restorative technique - Carie-care - caries removal - patient acceptance - Smart Burs

• REFERENCES

• 1 Bhat SS, Sain S, Hegde SK, Bhat VS. Efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2015; 1: 27-30
• 2 Estupiñán-Day S, Tellez M, Kaur S, Milner T, Solari A. Managing dental caries with atraumatic restorative treatment in children: Successful experience in three Latin American countries. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2013; 33: 237-43
• 3 Hamama H, Yiu C, Burrow M. Current update of chemomechanical caries removal methods. Aust Dent J 2014; 59: 446-56
• 4 Venkataraghavan K, Kush A, Lakshminarayana C, Diwakar L, Ravikumar P, Patil S. et al. Chemomechanical caries removal: A review & study of an indigen-ously developed agent (Carie Care^™ Gel) in children. J Int Oral Health 2013; 5: 84-90
• 5 Ganesh M, Parikh D. Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) agents: Review and clinical application in primary teeth. J Dent Oral Hyg 2011; 3: 34-45
• 6 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: 66-9
• 7 Dixit K, Dixit KK, Pandey R. Minimal intervention tooth preparation: A New Era of Dentistry. J Dent Sci Oral Rehabil. Oct-Dec 2012 4-7
• 8 Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, Götrick B, Bornstein R, Thorell J. Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemo-mechanical removal of caries. A multi-centre study. Caries Res 1999; 33: 171-7
• 9 Wong DL, Hockenberry-Eaton M, Wilson D, Winkelstein ML, Schwartz P. Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale. Wong's essentials of pediatric nursing; 6/e. St. Louis: 2001: p. 1301 Copyrighted by Mosby, Inc.; Available from at: http://healthonline.washington.edu
• 10 Maragakis GM, Hahn P, Hellwig E. Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal in primary molars and its acceptance by patients. Caries Res 2001; 35: 205-10
• 11 Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M, Verma L. Various methods of caries removal in children: A comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007; 25: 93-6
• 12 Kochhar GK, Srivastava N, Pandit IK, Gugnani N, Gupta M. An evaluation of different caries removal techniques in primary teeth: A comparitive clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011; 36: 5-9
• 13 Soni HK, Sharma A, Sood PB. A comparative clinical study of various methods of caries removal in children. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2015; 16: 19-26
• 14 Allen KL, Salgado TL, Janal MN, Thompson VP. Removing carious dentin using a polymer instrument without anesthesia versus a carbide bur with anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136: 643-51
• 15 Peters MC, Flamenbaum MH, Eboda NN, Feigal RJ, Inglehart MR. Chemomechanical caries removal in children: Efficacy and efficiency. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137: 1658-66
• 16 Hegde AM, Preethi VC, Shetty A, Shetty S. Clinical evaluation of chemo-mechanical caries removal using carie-care system among school children. NUJHS 2014; 4: 80-4
• 17 Dammaschke T, Rodenberg TN, Schäfer E, Ott KH. Efficiency of the polymer bur SmartPrep compared with conventional tungsten carbide bud bur in dentin caries excavation. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 256-60