The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 4 ( July, 2009 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Clinical Evaluation of Polyamide Polymer Burs for Selective Carious Dentin Removal

N.K. Kiran

Citation Information : 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

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 00-07-2009

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2009; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the carious dentin removal efficacy of new rotary polyamide burs capable of selectively removing infected dentin without removing sound dentin.

Methods and Materials

This study included 40 subjects with bilateral occlusal carious lesions on mandibular first permanent molars. The lesions were randomly assigned to receive one restoration after carious dentin removal with a polymer bur and the second after removal of carious dentin with a carbon steel round bur. Both procedures were completed by a single operator in one appointment. The efficacy of caries removal, time taken for caries removal, and patients’ perception of the treatment were evaluated. The restorations were evaluated immediately and after six months using intraoral periapical radiographs (IOPA).

Results

The results revealed statistically significant differences between the polymer burs and carbon steel burs with respect to caries removal efficacy (p<0.001) and the time taken for caries removal (p<0.001). No statistically significant results were obtained regarding patients’ perception of the treatment and longevity of the restorations.

Conclusion

Carbon steel round burs remove caries lesions more efficiently than polymer burs but they tend to contribute to the over-preparation of the cavity. Polyamide burs were found to be self-limiting and lose their cutting efficiency on reaching affected dentin and do not cut sound dentin. The time required for caries removal using the polymer bur was significantly longer than when using a carbon steel round bur.

Clinical Significance

One of the goals of conservative dentistry is to develop a method for removing caries-infected dentin while preserving caries-unaffected dentin. The use of polymer burs appears to offer a straightforward and efficient means for achieving this goal and conserving healthy tooth structure.

Citation

Prabhakar A, Kiran NK. Clinical Evaluation of Polyamide Polymer Burs for Selective Carious Dentin Removal. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009 July; (10)4:026-034.


PDF Share
  1. Two layers of carious dentin: diagnosis and treatment. Oper Dent 1979; 4:63-70.
  2. Sealing properties of a self-etching primer system to normal caries-affected and caries-infected dentin. Am J Dent 2003;16(Spec No A):68A-72A.
  3. Permeability of normal versus carious dentin. Endo Dent Traumatol 1991; 7(5):207-211.
  4. The effects of dentin permeability on restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46(2):211-245, v-vi.
  5. Ultraconservative and cariostatic sealed restorations: results at year 10. J Am Dent Assoc 1998; 129(1):55-66.
  6. Extension for prevention. IL State Dent Soc Trans (From: Boston DW. New device for selective dentin caries removal. Quintessence Int 2003; 34:678-685.
  7. New approach to cavity design with special reference to the class II lesion. Br Dent J 1984; 157:421-427.
  8. Dentin caries excavation: a review of current clinical techniques. Br Dent J 2000; 188:476-482.
  9. New device for selective dentin caries removal. Quintessence Int 2003; 34:678-685.
  10. Bonding of self etch and total etch adhesives to carious dentin. J Dent Res 2002; 81:556-560.
  11. Remineralization of carious dentin. J Dent Res 1968; 47:381-391.
  12. Removing carious dentin using a polymer instrument without anesthesia versus a carbide bur with anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136:643-650.
  13. Clinical Trials. New York, Wiley & Sons, 1993, p 129.
  14. Evaluation of Carisolv for the Chemo-Mechanical Removal of Primary Root Caries in vivo. Caries Res 2000; 34:275-280.
  15. Pain related to treatment of caries lesion. J Dent Child 2000; 67:123-127.
  16. Clinical evaluation of carisolv in the chemico-mechanical removal of carious dentin. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2001; 26(1):49-54.
  17. Evaluation of a self limiting concept in dentinal caries removal. J Dent Res 2006; 85(3):282-286.
  18. Clinical Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of a New Method for Chemo-Mechanical Removal of Caries. Caries Res 1999; 33:171-177.
  19. The specificity of caries detector dyes in cavity preparation. Br Dent J 1994; 176:417-420.
  20. Is ART really atruamatic. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999; 27:431-435.
  21. The use of caries detector dye during cavity preparation: a microbiological assessment. Br Dent J 1993; 174:245-248.
  22. Performance of four dentine excavation methods in deciduous teeth. Caries Res 2006; 40:117-123.
  23. Textbook of Clinical Cariology. 2nd ed. Copenhagan: Munksgard; 1994. p.111-157.
  24. Caries detector dyes – How accurate and useful are they? J Can Dent Assoc 2000; 66:195-198.
  25. In vitro validation of carious dentin removed using different excavation criteria. Am J Dent 2003; 16:228-230.
  26. The residual caries dilemma. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999; 27:436-441.
  27. Chemo mechanical caries removal: a comprehensive review of the literature. International Dental Journal 2001; 51:291-299.
  28. Efficiency of the Polymer Bur Smart Prep Compared with Conventional Tungsten Carbide Bud Bur in Dentin Caries Excavation. Oper Dent. 2006; 31(2):256-260.
  29. Atruamatic Restorative Treatment: Clinical, Ultrastructural and Chemical Analysis. Caries Res 2002; 36:430-436.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.