The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Caries Removal Efficacy Using BRIX 3000 and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment in Primary Molars: A Clinical Comparative Study

Nisha Gupta, Vundela R Reddy, NK Kiran, Ravigna Peddi, Mahesh Kumar

Keywords : Atraumatic restorative treatment, BRIX 3000, Caries-detector dye, Wong-Baker faces rating scale

Citation Information : Gupta N, Reddy VR, Kiran N, Peddi R, Kumar M. Evaluation of Caries Removal Efficacy Using BRIX 3000 and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment in Primary Molars: A Clinical Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (4):419-424.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3286

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 11-07-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare and evaluate the efficacy of two minimally invasive methods in the removal of infected carious dentin in primary molars. Materials and methods: Eighty primary molars with class I occlusal caries involving dentin were selected and allocated to either of the two groups using convenient sampling. Group A (n = 40) caries were excavated using BRIX 3000 and in Group B (n = 40) atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) caries were excavated using hand instruments only. In both groups, caries removal efficacy was evaluated clinically using caries detection dye (Sable and Sleek), and the patient's discomfort level was noted using the Wong-Baker faces pain rating scale (WBFPS). Results: The results indicated that BRIX 3000 was effective in the removal of caries from primary molars with a significant difference. While there was no statistically significant difference seen in pain perception on caries excavation using both the methods. Although, a mild discomfort was noted in Group B. Conclusion: Comparing the two minimally invasive techniques, the new chemomechanical solution (BRIX 3000) was an effective method for the removal of caries from primary molars. So, it can be considered an alternative to the conventional caries removal method in treating pediatric dental patients. Clinical significance: BRIX 3000 gel is effective in the removal of caries in children who are anxious and apprehensive as it is a noninvasive method of treatment in the pediatric age group.

PDF Share
  1. Uribe SE, Innes N, Maldupa I. The global prevalence of early childhood caries: a systematic review with meta-analysis using the WHO diagnostic criteria. Int J Paediatr Dent 2021;31(6):817–830. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12783.
  2. Jingarwar MM, Bajwa NK, Pathak A. Minimal intervention dentistry– a new frontier in clinical dentistry. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(7): 04–08. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9128.4583.
  3. Ge ZY, Yang LM, Xia JJ, et al. Possible aerosol transmission of COVID-19 and special precautions in dentistry. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2020;21(5):361–368. DOI: 10.1631/jzus.B2010010.
  4. Ganesh M, Parikh D. Chemo-mechanical caries removal (CMCR) agents: Review and clinical application in primary teeth. J Dent Oral Hygiene 2011;3(3):34–45.
  5. Garg Y, Bhaskar DJ, Suvarna M, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment in dentistry. Int J Oral Health Med Res 2015;2(2):126–129.
  6. Bussadori SK, Castro LC, Galvão AC. Papain gel: a new chemo-mechanical caries removal agent. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;30(2): 115–119. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.30.2.xq641w720u101048.
  7. Inamdar MS, Chole DG, Bakle SS, et al. Comparative evaluation of BRIX3000, CARIE CARE, and SMART BURS in caries excavation: an in vivo study. J Conserv Dent 2020;23(2):163–168. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_269_20.
  8. Kotb RM, Abdella AA, El Kateb MA, et al. Clinical evaluation of Papacarie in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009;34(2):117–123. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.34.2.f312p36g18463716.
  9. Ismail MM, Haidar AH. Evaluation of the efficacy of caries removal using papain gel (BRIX 3000) and Smart preparation bur: an in-vivo comparative study. J Pharm Sci Res 2019;11(2):444–449.
  10. Munshi A, Hegde A, Shetty P. Clinical evaluation of Carisolv in the chemo-mechanical removal of carious dentin. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002;34(2):117–123.
  11. Prabhakar A, Kiran NK. Clinical evaluation of polyamide polymer burs for selective carious dentin removal. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009;10(4):26–34. PMID: 19575051.
  12. Pascareli-Carlos AM, Martins LF, da Silva Gonçalves M, et al. Pain perception of children after restorative treatments: Atraumatic restorative treatment versus chemo-mechanical removal–A non-inferiority randomized clinical trial. J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent 2021;39(2):202–207. DOI: 10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_426_20.
  13. Anusavice KJ, Kincheloe JE. Comparison of pain associated with mechanical and chemo-mechanical removal of caries. J Dent Res 1987;66(11):1680. DOI: 10.1177/00220345870660111501.
  14. Nalawade HS, Lele GS, Walimbe HS. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of chemo-mechanical and conventional methods of caries excavation in young permanent molar teeth: In vivo study. J Dent Res 2019;6(1):13–18. DOI: 10.4103/jdrr.jdrr_71_18.
  15. Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, et al. Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemo-mechanical removal of caries. Caries Res 1999;33(3):171–177. DOI: 10.1159/000016513.
  16. Innes NP, Frencken JE, Bjørndal L, et al. Managing carious lesions: consensus recommendations on terminology. Adv Dent Res 2016;28(2):49–57. DOI: 10.1177/0022034516639276.
  17. Kleinknecht RA, Klepac RK, Alexander LD. Origins and characteristics of fear of dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1973;86(4):842–848. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1973.0165.
  18. Abdul Khalek AM, Elkateb MA, Abdel Aziz WE, et al. Effect of papacarie and alternative restorative treatment on pain reaction during caries removal among children: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;41(3):219–224. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.3.219.
  19. Adham MM, El Kashlan MK, Abdelaziz WE, et al. The impact of minimally invasive restorative techniques on perception of dental pain among pregnant women: a randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health 2021;21(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021- 01432-3.
  20. Ismail AI, Sohn W, Tellez M, et al. The International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS): an integrated system for measuring dental caries. Commun Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007;35(3):170–178. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00347.x.
  21. Gomez J, Tellez M, Pretty IA, et al. Non-cavitated carious lesions detection methods: a systematic review. Community Dentistry Oral Epidemiol 2013;41(1):55–66. DOI: 10.1111/cdoe.12021.
  22. Macey R, Walsh T, Riley P, et al. Tests to detect and inform the diagnosis of caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;2018:12–16. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013215.
  23. Dorothy McComb BD. Caries-detector dyes—how accurate and useful are they? J Can Dent Assoc 2000;66(4):195–198. PMID: 10789171.
  24. Kumar KS, Prasad MG, Sandeep RV, et al. Chemo-mechanical caries removal method versus mechanical caries removal methods in clinical and community-based setting: a comparative in vivo study. Eur J Dent 2016;10(03):386–391. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.184151.
  25. Kirzioglu Z, Gurbuz T, Yilmaz Y. Clinical evaluation of chemo-mechanical and mechanical caries removal: status of the restorations at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Clin Oral Investig 2007;11(1):69–76. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-006-0072-1.
  26. Kavvadia K, Karagianni V, Polychronopoulou A, et al. Primary teeth caries removal using the Carisolv chemo-mechanical method: a clinical trial. Pediatr Dent 2004;26(1):23–28. PMID: 15080354.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.