Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 386-391

Chemomechanical caries removal method versus mechanical caries removal methods in clinical and community-based setting: A comparative in vivo study


Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, St. Joseph Dental College and Hospital, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication16-Jun-2016

Correspondence Address:
M Ghanashyam Prasad
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, St. Joseph Dental College and Hospital, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.184151

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of various caries removal techniques in mandibular primary molars using Smart Burs, atraumatic restorative technique (ART) (mechanical caries removal) and Carie-care (chemomechanical caries removal [CMCR]) among primary school children in clinical and community-based settings. Materials and Methods: A total of 80 carious primary mandibular molars were selected for the study from the dental clinic and community. They were equally assigned to four groups according to caries removal technique and also by the operating site. In Group 1, caries was removed using Carie-care in the dental clinic and in Group 2, with Smart Burs in the dental clinic. In Group 3, caries was removed using Carie-care in the field and in Group 4, with the ART in the field. The time taken for caries removal, the efficacy of caries removal and patient acceptance were evaluated with different caries removal techniques. Statistical Analysis: The obtained data were subjected to statistical analysis by ANOVA test. Results: In clinical settings, Carie-care was time-consuming but was more efficient with increased acceptance than Smart Burs and the result was found to be significant statistically (P < 0.05). In community-based settings, Carie-care was more efficient, less time consuming, and showed an increased acceptance when compared to atraumatic restorative treatment and the result was found to be significant statistically (P < 0.05).
Conclusions: The CMCR technique was superior to the mechanical caries removal technique in primary teeth among school children in terms of time, efficacy, and acceptance in both clinical- and community-based settings.

Keywords: Atraumatic restorative technique, Carie-care, caries removal, patient acceptance, Smart Burs


How to cite this article:
Kumar KS, Prasad M G, Sandeep R V, Reddy S P, Divya D, Pratyusha K. Chemomechanical caries removal method versus mechanical caries removal methods in clinical and community-based setting: A comparative in vivo study. Eur J Dent 2016;10:386-91

How to cite this URL:
Kumar KS, Prasad M G, Sandeep R V, Reddy S P, Divya D, Pratyusha K. Chemomechanical caries removal method versus mechanical caries removal methods in clinical and community-based setting: A comparative in vivo study. Eur J Dent [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Jun 27];10:386-91. Available from: http://www.eurjdent.com/text.asp?2016/10/3/386/184151


  Introduction Top


The majority of rural populations in India do not have access due to geographical isolation, poor education, and low-income, making them unaware of the consequences of poor oral hygiene. Poor oral hygiene increases the probability of dental caries, so basic interventions in form of minimally invasive approaches such as atraumatic restorative technique (ART), chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) can be performed in rural areas atraumatically, with less cost and fewer instruments.[1]

ART uses manual excavation of dental caries without the use of local anesthesia and restores cavity with glass ionomer cement – an adhesive restorative material that bonds to tooth structure chemically and releases fluoride which helps in remineralization.[2] Carie-care (CMCR) and Smart Burs (mechanical caries removal) were minimally invasive treatment approaches which selectively remove caries-infected tissue while leaving intact caries-affected tissue-conserving tooth structure.[3]

Carie-care has a main active ingredient from papaya extract – an endo protein, chloramines, and dyes and additionally contains specific amounts of essential oils from plant sources which acts by chlorination of partially degraded collagen.[4],[5] Smart Burs are made of a polyamide resin having polymer shaft and blades in three different sizes – 004, 006, 008 used in slow speed rotary handpiece at 500–800 rpm which can easily remove soft carious dentin but when they come in contact with hard dentin they blunt out.[6],[7]

The purpose of the study is to compare the effectiveness of different caries removal techniques in primary teeth using the Carie-Care system, ART, and Smart Burs in removing dentinal caries among school children in the clinical setup and as well as in community-based settings. The time taken for caries removal, the efficacy of caries removal and patient acceptance were evaluated for clinical success with different caries removal techniques.


  Materials and Methods Top


A total of 80 carious primary mandibular molar teeth of 36 male and 44 female children between the age group of 5–10 years were selected for the study from the outpatient Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, St. Joseph Dental College and as well as from community after taking written consent from parents/guardians/teachers. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Institution.

Inclusion criteria

  • Healthy children of both sexes from 5 to 10 years of age who are willing to participate in the study
  • Patients with asymptomatic carious lesions with distinct dentin involvement, which was verified by radiograph in relation to mandibular primary molars
  • Carious lesions without any pulpal involvement.


Exclusion criteria

  • Uncooperative
  • Grossly decayed teeth
  • Deep carious lesions with pulpal involvement.


The selected subjects were assigned to four groups according to the caries removal technique and also by the operating site. Each group comprised of 20 carious primary mandibular molars. Isolation was done by rubber dam or cotton rolls based on operating site. After caries removal, the cavity was restored with ketac molar ® glass ionomer cement.

  • Group 1 - caries removal using Carie-care in the dental clinic
  • Group 2 - caries removal with Smart Burs in the dental clinic
  • Group 3 - caries removal using Carie-care in the field
  • Group 4 - caries removal with the ART in the field.


Methodology

Group 1 procedure

The involved tooth was isolated with rubber dam, and Carie-care gel was applied to the carious lesion. After 60 s, the area treated with Carie-care gel showed a cloudy appearance. Later on, the gel was removed with a moistened cotton pellet and softened carious dentin was scrapped off using spoon excavator. Caries removal was verified by probing with explorer. The drill was used to adjust the periphery, and the tooth was restored with ketac molar ® glass ionomer cement [Figure 1].
Figure 1: (a) Carious 75, (b) Carie-care gel application, (c) after Caries excavation, (d) after GIC restoration

Click here to view


Group 2 procedure

The tooth involved was isolated with a rubber dam. Caries was excavated with Smart Burs in slow speed handpiece with circular movements starting from the periphery to the center of the lesion. Caries removal was verified by probing with explorer and then the tooth was restored with ketac molar ® glass ionomer cement [Figure 2].
Figure 2: (a) Carious 75, (b) Caries excavation with Smart Burs, (c) after Caries excavation, (d) after GIC restoration

Click here to view


Group 3 procedure

The involved tooth was isolated with cotton pellets, and the Carie-care gel was applied to the carious lesion. After 60 s, the carious lesion treated with Carie-care gel showed a cloudy appearance. Later on, the gel was removed with a moistened cotton pellet and softened carious dentin was scrapped off using spoon excavator. Caries removal was verified by probing with explorer, and the tooth was restored with ketac molar ® glass ionomer cement [Figure 3].
Figure 3: (a) Carious 85, (b) Carie-care gel application, (c) after Caries excavation, (d) after GIC restoration

Click here to view


Group 4 procedure

The involved tooth was isolated with cotton pellets, the entrance of the lesion was widened by enamel hatchet to remove unsupported enamel rods and then caries was removed by spoon excavator. Caries removal was verified by probing with an explorer followed by ketac molar ® glass ionomer cement restoration [Figure 4].
Figure 4: (a) Carious 75, (b) Caries excavation with spoon excavator, (c) after Caries excavation, (d) after GIC restoration

Click here to view


The following observations were noted:

  1. The time taken was recorded from the start of caries removal procedure till the placement of ketac molar ® glass ionomer cement restoration by a stopwatch
  2. Efficacy of caries removal was evaluated by assessing the amount of remaining caries left by following scores given by Ericson et al.[8]0 - Caries removed completely

    1 - Caries present in base of the cavity

    2 - Caries present in base and/or wall

    3 - Caries present in base and/or two walls

    4 - Caries present in base and/or >2 walls

    5-Caries present in base, walls, and margins of cavity.

  3. To know the patient acceptance of the respective procedure after caries removal, pain rating was assessed with the help of Wong–Baker Faces pain rating scale.[9]


0 - No hurt

2 - Hurts little bit

4 - Hurts little more

6 - Hurts even more

8 - Hurts whole lot

10 - Hurts worst.

The obtained data from the study was subjected to statistical analysis by GraphPad Prism statistical software (6.0 version) (www.graphpad.com/scientific-software/prism/). Analysis was done with one-way ANOVA for:

  1. Comparison of time taken for caries removal, the efficacy of caries removal, and patient acceptance with all four groups
  2. Comparison between Carie-care in clinical settings (Group 1) versus Smart Burs in clinical settings (Group 2)
  3. Comparison between Carie-care in community-based settings (Group 3) versus ART in community-based settings (Group 4).



  Results Top


[Table 1] shows intergroup comparison between all four groups:
Table 1:  Comparison  of  time  taken  for  caries  removal,  the  efficacy  of  caries  removal  and  patient  acceptance  with all 4 groups

Click here to view


The average time taken by Carie-care (Group 1) was 420.0 s, and Smart Burs (Group 2) was 351.0 s in clinical settings and Carie-care (Group 3) was 400.5 s and by ART (Group 4) was 499.5 s in community-based settings. In clinical settings, the mean value of efficacy of caries removal by Carie-care was 1.05 and by Smart Burs was 1.9. In community-based settings, the mean value of efficacy of caries removal by Carie-care was 0.9 and by ART was 1.6.

There was a statistically significant difference (P< 0.0001) in the time taken, efficacy, and acceptance when the comparison was made between all the four groups and the correlation factor (F) was 235.1. Almost all the patients affirmed that chemomechanical approach was more acceptable.

The results determined that CMCR technique was superior to the mechanical caries removal technique in primary teeth among school children in terms of time, efficacy, and patient acceptance in both clinical- and community-based settings.

[Table 2] shows intergroup Comparison between Carie-care in clinical settings (Group 1) versus Smart Burs in clinical settings (Group 2).
Table 2:  Carie-care  in  clinical  settings (Group 1)  versus  Smart  Burs  in  clinical  settings (Group 2)

Click here to view


Intergroup comparison of the time taken for caries removal, the efficacy of caries removal, and patient acceptance between Carie-care in clinical settings (Group 1) and Smart Burs in clinical settings (Group 2) was made to ascertain the better modality of treatment among chemomechanical and mechanical methods for caries excavation. The results showed a statistically significant difference between (P< 0.0001) these groups with 136.0 correlation factor (F).

In clinical settings, though time-consuming Carie-care was more efficient in caries removal with increased patient acceptance than Smart Burs.

[Table 3] shows intergroup comparison between Carie-care in community-based settings (Group 3) versus ART in community-based settings (Group 4).
Table  3: Carie-care in community-based settings (Group 3)  versus  atraumatic  restorative  technique  in  community-based  settings (Group 4)

Click here to view


Intergroup comparison of time taken for caries removal, the efficacy of caries removal and patient acceptance by Carie-care in community settings (Group 3) and ART in community settings (Group 4) was made to find out better method of treatment among chemomechanical and mechanical methods of caries excavation. The results showed a statistically significant difference between (P< 0.0001) these groups with 574.2 correlation factor (F).

In community-based settings, Carie-care was more efficient, less time consuming and showed an increased acceptance when compared to ART.


  Discussion Top


Clinically, removal of caries is performed by two methods namely conventional and ultra-conservative. Caries removal by conventional procedures is accomplished with high-speed rotary equipment, ART, stainless steel burs, tungsten carbide burs, and hand excavators, but have disadvantages of causing dental anxiety due to drill, pain, local anesthesia, excess removal of tooth structure, removal of both infected and affected dentin, and can lead to adverse effects to the pulp due to the heat generated at the cutting ends.[6],[10]

Ultraconservative methods have gained importance by leaving affected dentin intact for remineralization, no need for local anesthesia and with a conservative approach. These methods include CMCR, air abrasion, lasers, and polymer burs. Ultraconservative methods such as CMCR and polymer burs have gained importance by leaving affected dentin intact for remineralization.[6]

In this study, the efficacy of caries removal was assessed with scoring given by Ericson et al.[8] The studies conducted by Pandit et al. and Kochhar et al. showed the greatest efficacy of caries removal by air-rotor followed by Carisolv and the least efficacy of caries removal was with hand instruments and both the studies used caries detector dyes to detect the presence of any remaining caries.[11],[12] A study done by Soni et al. had shown greatest efficacy with air-rotor followed by almost comparable efficacy with polymer bur and then by Carisolv and the least effective method was by hand instrument,[13] but in our study, greatest efficacy was noticed with Carie-care when compared to polymer burs and ART in both clinical and community-based settings.

Smart Burs lead to under-preparation due to self-limiting nature of the bur that will not cut affected dentin, if a greater force is applied then it will wear away rather than cut sound dentin.[14] Carie-care is a minimally invasive method of caries removal which removes degraded collagen found in demineralized portion (infected dentin) of a carious lesion by the action of chloramines whereas unaffected collagen in affected dentin is more resistant to degradation due to their strong framework.[15]

In our study, the time taken for caries removal was recorded by a stopwatch from beginning of caries excavation till the placement of ketac molar ® glass ionomer cement and it was found to be minimal for the mechanical approach (ART and Smart Burs) when compared to chemomechanical approach (Carie-care). Hegde et al. compared Carie-care system and conventional drill among school children and concluded that chemomechanical technique, though time-consuming it was superior to the conventional technique in pediatric dentistry.[16]

Dammaschke et al. measured the time required for caries excavation by Smart Burs and conventional carbide burs. The mean time taken by Smart Burs was 208.1 s and by carbide burs was 228.32 s, and results were found to be not statistically significant.[17] In the present study, time taken by Carie-care (clinical settings) was 420.0 s; Smart Burs was 351.0 s, Carie-care (community settings) was 400.5 s, ART was 499.5 s till restoration placement, and the results were statistically significant.

Kochhar et al. observed mean visual analog scale (VAS) scores for airotor group, spoon excavator group, Carisolv group, and concluded Carisolv was the least painful method for caries removal than drilling.[12] Soni et al. observed mean VAS scores for the air-rotor group, spoon excavator group, Carisolv group, polymer burs, and concluded that Carisolv group was the least painful method for caries excavation followed by polymer burs, spoon excavators, and air-rotor group.[13] Similar results were observed in this study which means pain rating scores using Wong–Baker Faces pain rating scale with Carie-care (1.9) was the least painful and the most acceptable method followed by polymer burs (3.4) and ART (2.3).

The unpleasant sensation during caries removal with the mechanical approach, ART (pulpal stimulation) and Smart Burs (heat generation), makes treatment more traumatic when compared to chemomechanical approach – Carie-care (leaving the intact affected dentin and thermal insulating function).[13]


  Conclusions Top


From this study, it was observed that Carie-care was as effective as conventional methods in caries removal so it can be recommended as an alternative treatment modality in anxious children in both clinical and community-based settings. Carie-care CMCR agent holds excellent promise in dental practice for the preservance of the tooth structure.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Bhat SS, Sain S, Hegde SK, Bhat VS. Efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2015;1:27-30.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Estupiñán-Day S, Tellez M, Kaur S, Milner T, Solari A. Managing dental caries with atraumatic restorative treatment in children: Successful experience in three Latin American countries. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2013;33:237-43.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Hamama H, Yiu C, Burrow M. Current update of chemomechanical caries removal methods. Aust Dent J 2014;59:446-56.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Venkataraghavan K, Kush A, Lakshminarayana C, Diwakar L, Ravikumar P, Patil S, et al. Chemomechanical caries removal: A review & study of an indigen-ously developed agent (Carie Care Gel) in children. J Int Oral Health 2013;5:84-90.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Ganesh M, Parikh D. Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) agents: Review and clinical application in primary teeth. J Dent Oral Hyg 2011;3:34-45.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Usha C, Ranjani R. Comparative evaluation of two commercially available polymer burs for their efficacy on dentinal caries removal – Split tooth study using polarized light microscopy. J Sci Dent 2012;2:66-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Dixit K, Dixit KK, Pandey R. Minimal intervention tooth preparation: A New Era of Dentistry. J Dent Sci Oral Rehabil Oct-Dec 2012;4-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, Götrick B, Bornstein R, Thorell J. Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemo-mechanical removal of caries. A multi-centre study. Caries Res 1999;33:171-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Wong DL, Hockenberry-Eaton M, Wilson D, Winkelstein ML, Schwartz P. Wong-Baker FACES pain rating scale. Wong's essentials of pediatric nursing, 6/e. St. Louis, 2001. p. 1301. Copyrighted by Mosby, Inc. Available from at: http://healthonline.washington.edu.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Maragakis GM, Hahn P, Hellwig E. Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal in primary molars and its acceptance by patients. Caries Res 2001;35:205-10.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M, Verma L. Various methods of caries removal in children: A comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007;25:93-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
12.
Kochhar GK, Srivastava N, Pandit IK, Gugnani N, Gupta M. An evaluation of different caries removal techniques in primary teeth: A comparitive clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;36:5-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Soni HK, Sharma A, Sood PB. A comparative clinical study of various methods of caries removal in children. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2015;16:19-26.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Allen KL, Salgado TL, Janal MN, Thompson VP. Removing carious dentin using a polymer instrument without anesthesia versus a carbide bur with anesthesia. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:643-51.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Peters MC, Flamenbaum MH, Eboda NN, Feigal RJ, Inglehart MR. Chemomechanical caries removal in children: Efficacy and efficiency. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:1658-66.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Hegde AM, Preethi VC, Shetty A, Shetty S. Clinical evaluation of chemo-mechanical caries removal using carie-care system among school children. NUJHS 2014;4:80-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Dammaschke T, Rodenberg TN, Schäfer E, Ott KH. Efficiency of the polymer bur SmartPrep compared with conventional tungsten carbide bud bur in dentin caries excavation. Oper Dent 2006;31:256-60.  Back to cited text no. 17
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


This article has been cited by
1 Evaluation of Er:YAG lasers on pain perception in pediatric patients during caries removal: a split-mouth study
Emre Korkut,Onur Gezgin,Hazal Özer,Yagmur Sener
Acta Odontologica Turcica. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2441    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded466    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]