Journal of South Asian Association of Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  7 (2024)
Volume  6 (2023)
Volume  5 (2022)
Volume  4 (2021)
Volume  3 (2020)
Volume  2 (2019)
Volume  1 (2018)
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of Caries Removal Using Carie-Care and SmartPrep Burs in Primary Teeth: A Comparative Study

Royasa Shakya, Bandana Koirala, Mamta Dali, Sneha Shrestha, Gajendra Birajee

Keywords : Carie-Care, Caries removal, Chemomechanical caries removal, Dental fear and anxiety, Minimal intervention dentistry, SmartPrep bur

Citation Information : Shakya R, Koirala B, Dali M, Shrestha S, Birajee G. Evaluation of Caries Removal Using Carie-Care and SmartPrep Burs in Primary Teeth: A Comparative Study. J South Asian Assoc Pediatr Dent 2024; 7 (2):88-93.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10077-3312

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 06-09-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: As the importance of preserving natural teeth becomes evident, the notion of minimal intervention dentistry (MID) is becoming more acceptable. Two such feasible techniques for caries removal are chemomechanical agents (Carie-Care) and polymer burs (SmartPrep bur). Aim: To compare the clinical efficacy (effectiveness) and efficiency (time taken) of selective removal of carious dentin using Carie-Care and SmartPrep burs in primary teeth. Materials and methods: A comparative split-mouth study was carried out on 4–9-year-old children. Around 70 primary second molars in 35 children were allocated to group C (Carie-Care) and group S (SmartPrep burs). Efficacy and efficiency of caries removal, behavioral change, and pain perceived were evaluated in both groups. Results: The efficacy of caries removal was better with Carie-Care than SmartPrep burs when assessed using visual, tactile, and caries-detector dye methods, though not statistically significant. However, significantly more time was taken for caries removal with Carie-Care than SmartPrep burs (p < 0.001). There was also a statistically significant positive change in behavior in group C and group S when assessed using the Frankl scale (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004) and the Venham scale (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002), respectively. Additionally, 91.4% in group C and 77.1% in group S demonstrated comfort during caries removal, which was statistically nonsignificant (p = 0.101). Conclusion: Carie-Care and SmartPrep burs were both equally effective and comfortable and brought about a positive behavior change, though Carie-Care was found to be more time-consuming. Clinical significance: Minimal intervention techniques for caries removal maximize the preservation of healthy dental tissues while reducing dental fear and anxiety (DFA) in children.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Global oral health status report: Towards universal health coverage for oral health by 2030. World Health Organization; 2022.
  2. Bhagat TK, Shrestha A. Prevalence of dental caries among public school children in Eastern Nepal. J Chitwan Med Coll 2014;4(7):30–32. DOI: 10.3126/jcmc.v4i1.10845
  3. Bastola S, Koirala B, Dali M, et al. Dental caries experience in 6–13 years old school children of Dharan sub-metropolitan city, Nepal: a cross-sectional study. J Nepalese Assoc Pediatr Dent 2021;2(1):12–18. DOI: 10.3126/jnapd.v2i1.41559
  4. Nagaveni NB, Radhika NB, Satisha TS, et al. Efficacy of new chemomechanical caries removal agent compared with conventional method in primary teeth: an in vivo study. Int J Oral Health Sci 2016;6(2):52–58. DOI: 10.4103/2231-6027.199986
  5. Hmud R, Walsh LJ. Dental anxiety: causes, complications and management approaches. Int Dent SA 2007;9(5):6–14.
  6. Walsh LJ. Anxiety prevention: implementing the 4 S principle in conservative dentistry. Auxiliary 2007;17(5):24–26.
  7. Taani DQ. Dental attendance and anxiety among public and private school children in Jordan. Int Dent J 2002;52(1):25–29. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2002.tb00593.x
  8. Venkataraghavan K, Kush A, Lakshminarayana CS, et al. Chemomechanical caries removal: a review & study of an indigenously developed agent (Carie Care TM gel) in children. J Int Oral Health 2013;5(4):84–90. PMID: 24155626.
  9. Yun J, Shim YS, Park SY, et al. New treatment method for pain and reduction of local anesthesia use in deep caries. J Dent Anesth Pain Med 2018;18(5):277–285. DOI: 10.17245/jdapm.2018.18.5.277
  10. Nalawade HS, Lele GS, Walimbe HS. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of chemomechanical and conventional methods of caries excavation in young permanent molar teeth: in vivo study. J Dent Res Rev 2019;6(1):13–18. DOI: 10.4103/jdrr.jdrr_71_18
  11. Khijmatgar S, Balagopal S. Minimally invasive dentistry: polymer burs. J Dent Oral Biol 2016;1(2):1–3.
  12. Craıg RG, Peyton FA. The micro-hardness of enamel and dentin. J Dent Res 1958;37(4):661–668. DOI: 10.1177/00220345580370041301
  13. Fusayama T, Okuse K, Hosoda H. Relationship between hardness, discoloration, and microbial invasion in carious dentin. J Dent Res 1966;45(4):1033–1046. DOI: 10.1177/00220345660450040401
  14. de Oliviera DS, Barreiros D, da Silva LA, et al. The effect of polymer burs on microbiological reduction of carious dentin in deciduous teeth: a systematic review. Dent 3000 2016;4(1):17–24. DOI: 10.5195/d3000.2016.56
  15. Prabhakar A, Kiran NK. 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
  16. Lohmann J, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Histological determination of cariously altered collagen after dentin caries excavation with the polymer bur PolyBur P1 in comparison to a conventional bud bur. Head Face Med 2019;15(1):19. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-019-0205-9
  17. 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
  18. Gupta M, Gugnani N, Pandit I. International caries detection and assessment system (ICDAS): a new concept. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;4(2):93–100. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1089
  19. Wright GZ, Weinberger SJ, Marti R, et al. The effectiveness of infiltration anesthesia in the mandibular primary molar region. Pediatr Dent 1991;13(5):278–283. PMID: 1815200.
  20. 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
  21. Narayan VK, Samuel SR. Appropriateness of various behavior rating scales used in pediatric dentistry: a review. J Global Oral Health 2020;2:112–117. DOI: 10.25259/JGOH_64_2019
  22. 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
  23. Armfield JM, Stewart JF, Spencer AJ. The vicious cycle of dental fear: exploring the interplay between oral health, service utilization and dental fear. BMC Oral Health 2007;7(1):1–15. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-7-1
  24. Sajjanshetty S, Hugar D, Hugar S, et al. Decontamination methods used for dental burs - a comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(6):ZC39–ZC41. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9314.4488
  25. Morrison A, Conrod S. Dental burs and endodontic files: are routine sterilization procedures effective? J Can Dent Assoc 2009;75(1):39. PMID: 19239741.
  26. Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, et al. Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemo-mechanical removal of caries: a multi-centre study. Caries Res 1999;33(3):171–177. DOI: 10.1159/000016513
  27. Shivasharan PR, Farhin AK, Wakpanjar MM, et al. Clinical evaluation of caries removal in primary teeth using Carie-care and SmartPrep burs: an in vivo study. Indian J Oral Health Res 2016;2(1):27–31. DOI: 10.4103/2393-8692.184732
  28. Aswathi KK, Rani SP, Athimuthu A, et al. Comparison of efficacy of caries removal using polymer bur and chemomechanical caries removal agent: a clinical and microbiological assessment - an in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017;35(1):6–13. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.199232
  29. Shashikala, Krishnamoorthy, Savithasathyaprasad SH, et al. “Carie Care” a novel method of caries removal and its effectiveness: a randomised clinical trial. Int J Develop Res 2017;7(12):17899–17902.
  30. Hegde RJ, Chaudhari S. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and chemo-mechanical methods of caries excavation: an in vivo study. J Int Oral Health 2016;8(3):357–361. DOI: 10.2047/jioh-08-03-11
  31. Kumar KS, Prasad MG, Sandeep RV, et al. Chemomechanical caries removal method versus mechanical caries removal methods in clinical and community-based setting: a comparative in vivo study. Eur J Dent 2016;10(3):386–391. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.184151
  32. Kakaboura A, Masouras C, Staikou O, et al. A comparative clinical study on the Carisolv caries removal method. Quintessence Int 2003;34(4):269–271. PMID: 12731612.
  33. Bergmann J, Leitão J, Kultje C, et al. Removing dentine caries in deciduous teeth with Carisolv TM: a randomised, controlled, prospective study with chemomechanical treatment with drilling. Oral Health Prev Dent 2005;3(2):105–111. PMID: 16173387.
  34. Sontakke P, Jain P, Patil A, et al. A comparative study of the clinical efficiency of chemomechanical caries removal using Carie-Care gel for permanent teeth of children of age group of 12–15 years with that of conventional drilling method: a randomized controlled trial. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2019;16(1):42–46. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.249558
  35. Morad YO, El Maaty M, Mostafa M. Clinical evaluation of Carie-Care as chemo-mechanical caries removal agent in disabled Egyptian children. Al-Azhar Dent J Girls 2020;7(2):319–327. DOI: 10.21608/adjg.2020.12762.1141
  36. Batista S, Tunas I. The importance of minimal intervention dentistry after the COVID- 19 pandemic: a look to the future. J Dent Otolaryngol 2020;20(6):1–10. DOI: 10.17406/GJMR
  37. Leme RD, Lamarque G de CC, Bastos LA, et al. Minimal intervention dentistry: biocompatibility and mechanism of action of products for chemical-mechanical removal of carious tissue. Front Dent Med 2022;3:1–6. DOI: 10.3389/fdmed.2022.851331
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.