The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2012 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Clinical Evaluation of Caries Removal in Primary Teeth using Conventional, Chemomechanical and Laser Technique: An in vivo Study

Mariya R Bohari, Yusuf K Chunawalla, Bijle Mohammed Nadeem Ahmed

Citation Information : Bohari MR, Chunawalla YK, Ahmed BM. Clinical Evaluation of Caries Removal in Primary Teeth using Conventional, Chemomechanical and Laser Technique: An in vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13 (1):40-47.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1093

Published Online: 01-08-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

To evaluate four different techniques of caries excavation in primary teeth in terms of efficacy, efficiency and pain experienced during the procedure.

Materials and methods

Sample of 120 teeth from children aged 5 to 9 years were equally divided into 4 groups – Air rotor (group A), Carisolv (group B), Papacarie (group C) and Er:YAG laser (group D). Visual and tactile criteria along with DIAGNOdent pen value was used to evaluate efficacy. Time was recorded to determine efficiency and FLACC scale was used to assess the pain experienced.

Results

Air rotor and laser were more effective and efficient method whereas laser and CMCR methods were more comfortable methods.

Conclusion

Laser irradiation and CMCR methods are comparable to conventional methods in terms of effectiveness and are less painful methods.

Clinical significance

Newer techniques of CMCR and laser irradiation of dentinal caries are minimally invasive methods and are less painful and thus should be more frequently employed in pediatric dentistry.

How to cite this article

Bohari MR, Chunawalla YK, Ahmed BMN. Clinical Evaluation of Caries Removal in Primary Teeth using Conventional, Chemomechanical and Laser Technique: An in vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(1):40-47.

PDF Share
  1. The burden of restorative dental treatment for children in third world countries. Int Dent J 2002;52(1):1-9.
  2. The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bull World Health Organ 2005;83(9):661-69.
  3. Dentine caries excavation: A review of current clinical techniques, British Dental Journal 13 May 2000;188(9).
  4. Comparison of the efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal (CarisolvTM) with that of conventional excavation in reducing the cariogenic flora. Int J Pediatric Dentistry 2004;l4:182-89.
  5. Papain gel: A new chemomechanical caries removal agent. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;30:115-19.
  6. Use of papain gel in disabled patients. J Dent Child 2008;75:222-28.
  7. Laser beam on dental hard tissues. J Dent Res 1964;43:873.
  8. Residual caries detection using visible fluorescence. Caries Res 2002;36:315-19.
  9. DIAGNOdent: An optical method for caries detection. J Dent Res 2004;83:C80.
  10. Performance of laser fluorescence for residual caries detection in primary teeth. European Journal of Dentistry, July 2008;27:177-84.
  11. Anxiety and pain measures in dentistry JADA 2000;46:298-303.
  12. Removing carious dentin using a polymer instrument without anesthesia versus a carbide bur with anesthesia. JAM Dent Assoc 2005;136:643-50.
  13. Chemomechanical removal of dental caries in deciduous teeth; further studies in vitro. Br Dent J 27 Feb 1999;186(4):179-82.
  14. Microtensile bond strength to primary dentin after chemomechanical caries removal. J Dent Res 2000;79:372.
  15. Performance of four dentin excavation methods in deciduous teeth. Caries Res 2006;40:117-23.
  16. Clinical evaluation of Carisolv chemomechanical caries removal technique according to the sitel/stage concept, a revised caries classification system. Clin Oral Invest 2003;7:32-37.
  17. Die Wirkung gepulster Er:YAG Laserstrahlung auf Zahngewebe. Laser Med Surg 1988;4:163-65.
  18. Erbium: YAG laser application in caries therapy: Evaluation of patient perception and acceptance. J Dent 1998;26:649-56.
  19. A study of cavity preparation by Er:YAG laser observation of hard tooth structure by laser scanning microscope and examination of the time necessary to remove caries. Dent Mater J 2002;21(1):20-31.
  20. Cavity size difference after caries removal by a fluorescence-controlled Er:YAG laser and by conventional bur treatment, Clin Oral Invest 2008;12:311-18.
  21. Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemomechanical removal of caries. Caries Res 1999;33:171-77.
  22. Chemomechanical caries removal in primary teeth in a group of anxious children. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(8):773-79.
  23. Clinical randomized controlled trial of chemomechanical caries removal (CarisolvTM). Int J Pediatr Dent 2006;l6(3):161-67.
  24. Chemomechanical caries removal: A clinical study. Caries Res 1999;33:312.
  25. Chemomechanical removal of root caries compared to drilling. J Dent Res 1999;78.
  26. Dental discomfort questionnaire for going children before and after treatment. Acta Odontol Scand 2005;63(6):367-76.
  27. Chemomechanical caries removal for children. Stomatologija, Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial J 2005;7:40-44.
  28. Removal of caries using only hand instruments; A comparison of mechanical and chemomechanical methods. Caries Res 2001;35:384-89.
  29. Clinical evaluation of Carisolv chemomechanical caries removal technique according to the sitel/stage concept, a revised caries classification system. Clin Oral Invest 2003;7:32-37.
  30. A comparative clinical study on the CarisolvTM caries removal method. Quintessence Int 2003;34:269-71.
  31. Efticacy of Carisolvassisted caries excavation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1999;19:464-69.
  32. Removing dentine caries in deciduous teeth with Carisolv: A randomized, controlled, prospective study with 6 months follow-up. Comparing chemomechanical treatment with drilling. Oral Health Prev Dent 2005;3(2):105-11.
  33. Removal of carious dentin by Er:YAG laser irradiation with and without Carisolv™. Journal of Clinical Laser Medicine and Surgery June 2001;19(3):127-31.
  34. Basic study on vibrations during tooth preparations caused by high-speed drilling and Er:YAG laser irradiation. Lasers Surg Med 2003;32(1):25-31.
  35. IJCD September 2010;1(1):73-77.
  36. Comparison of pain associated with mechanical and chemomechanical removal of caries. J Dent Res 1987;66:1680-83.
  37. Objektiv darstellbare Empfindungen am Zahn während der Einwirkung von Carisolv. Quintessenz 2000;51(5):461-69.
  38. Comparison of caries removal using Carisolv or a conventional slow speed rotary instrument. Caries Res 199933281-33. (46th ORCA Congress).
  39. Laser pediatric class II composites without anesthesia. J Clin Ped Dent 2000;28(2):99-101.
  40. Short-term histomorphological effects of Er:YAG laser irradiation to rat coronal dentin-pulp complex. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 2004;97:246-50.
  41. Caries removal techniques and instrumentation: A review. Clin Oral Invest 1998;2:148-54.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.