Journal of South Asian Association of Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 5 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Efficiency, Efficacy, and Patient Perception of Caries Excavation Burs in Pediatric Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Arundhati Goyal, Manvi Srivastava, Kusum Bharti

Keywords : Caries excavation burs, Clinical trial, Efficacy, Efficiency

Citation Information : Goyal A, Srivastava M, Bharti K. Comparative Evaluation of Efficiency, Efficacy, and Patient Perception of Caries Excavation Burs in Pediatric Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J South Asian Assoc Pediatr Dent 2022; 5 (1):11-16.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10077-3214

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-03-2022

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


Abstract

Aim: This in vivo study was aimed to investigate and compare the cutting efficiency, removal of carious dentin (efficacy), and patient comfort while removing caries between newer caries excavation bur (ceramic bur and smart bur) with conventional bur (diamond point). Material and methods: A total number of 75 carious primary molars were selected in pediatric patients and three different types of burs were used for caries excavation which were evaluated and compared for total time taken (efficiency), remaining infected dentin (efficacy), and patient acceptance clinically. Result: Significant difference (p = 0.000) was obtained in terms of efficiency with least time consumed by ceramic bur and highest by smart bur. For efficacy, a significant difference was obtained (p = 0.002), ceramic bur being the most effective in carious dentin removal. For patient acceptance, a significant difference was obtained (p = 0.000), diamond point and ceramic bur were equally acceptable to the patient and the least accepted was smart bur. Conclusion: Ceramic bur proved to be suitable for minimally invasive caries excavation in primary molars as well as comfortable to the pediatric patients because of high cutting efficiency and lesser time consumption.


PDF Share
  1. Hassan AF, Yadav G, Tripathi AM, et al. A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of different caries excavation techniques in reducing the cariogenic flora. An in vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(3):214–217. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1366
  2. Isik EE, Olmez A, Akca G, et al. A microbiological assessment of polymer and conventional carbide burs in caries removal. Pediatr Dent 2010;32(4):316–323.
  3. Maarouf R, Badr S, Ragab H. Clinical efficiency of polymer burs in caries removal in primary molars and relevant pain perception: a randomized controlled trial. Int Arab J Dent 2018;9(1):9–14.
  4. Dammaschke T, Rodenberg TN, Schafer E, et al. Efficiency of the polymer bur SmartPrep compared with conventional tungsten carbide bud bur in dentin caries excavation. Oper Dent 2006;31(2):256–260. DOI: 10.2341/05-24
  5. Dammaschke T, Vesnic A, Schafer E. In vitro comparison of ceramic burs and conventional tungsten carbide bud burs in dentin caries excavation. Quintessence Int 2008;39(6):495–499.
  6. Allen KL, Salgado TL, Janal M, et al. Removing carious dentin using a polymer instrument without anesthesia versus a carbide bur with anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136(5):643–651. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0237
  7. Munshi AK, Hegde AM, Shetty PK. Clinical evaluation of Carisolv in the chemico-mechanical removal of carious dentin. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2001;26(1):49–54. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.26.1.lr48727276478461
  8. Merkel SI, Voepel-Lewis T, Shayevitz JR, et al. The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scoring postoperative pain in young children. Pediatr Nurs 1997;23(3):293–297.
  9. Zakirulla M, Uloopi K, Subba Reddy V. In vivo comparison of reduction in bacterial count after caries excavation with 3 different techniques. J Dent Child 2011;78(1):31–35.
  10. Strassler HE. Dentin-safe, self-limiting, medical-grade burs can help preserve caries excavation. Inside Dent 2011;7(7).
  11. Wahba W, Sharaf A, Bakery N, et al. Evaluation of polymer bur for carious dentin removal in primary teeth. Alexandria Dent J 2015;40(1):107–112. DOI: 10.21608/ADJALEXU.2015.58744
  12. Shakya VK, Chandra A, Tikku AP, et al. A comparative evaluation of dentin caries removal with polymer bur and conventional burs—an in vitro study. Open J Stomatol 2012;2(1):12–15. DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2012.21002
  13. Divya G, Prasad MG, Vasa AAK, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of caries removal using polymer bur, stainless steel bur, carisolv, papacarie – an invitro comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(7):ZC42–ZC46. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12705.6202
  14. Prabhakar A, Kiran NK. Clinical evaluation of polyamide polymer burs for selective carious dentin removal. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009;4(10):26–34.
  15. 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. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1093
  16. Rajakumar S, Mungara J, Joseph E, et al. Evaluation of three different caries removal techniques in children: a comparative clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013;38(1):23–26. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.38.1.p3324121m66n1737
  17. Ardeshana A, Bargale S, Karri A, et al. Evaluation of caries excavation efficacy with ceramic bur and hand excavation in primary teeth: an experimental study. J South Asian Assoc Pediatr Dent 2020;3(2):60–64
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.