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

Abstract

Background: Dental caries is considered as one of the most serious dental diseases that results in localized dissolution and destruction of the calcified tooth tissues. As possible alternatives to conventional techniques of caries removal, chemomechanical caries removal systems have emerged. This study aims to clinically observe the advantages of chemomechanical method of caries removal over conventional technique. Materials and Methods: Inthis randomized controlled trial a total of 60 children with Class 1 open carious lesions were selected for the study. They were divided into two equal groups according to a method of caries removal (30 chemomechanical and 30 conventional on permanent molars). In Group A, caries was removed using the Carie-Care system and in Group B with the conventional drill and were restored equally with glass ionomer cement. The visual analogy face scale was used to determine the level of anxiety in children at baseline, during treatment and after treatment. Results: The results were subjected to statistical analysis using Student's unpaired t -test. It showed that though chemomechanical technique took a marginal increase in time compared to the conventional technique, it was found to be more comfortable for all the children. Conclusion: Chemomechanical technique though time-consuming is definitely superior compared to the conventional technique provided we use a less technique sensitive restorative material which retains in the oral cavity for longer period. It is definitely a better treatment protocol in school-based dental treatment and atraumatic restorative dentistry compared to the conventional technique.

Efficacy and Patient’s Acceptance of Alternative Methods for Caries Removal—A Systematic Review

“…Two [ 26 , 27 ] included studies followed a cross-over trial design, while eighteen [ 10 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ] had a split-mouth design. One study [ 45 ] followed a two parallel-arms trial, five studies [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ] provided one treatment per patient while five studies [ 15 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ] had one or more treatment per patient. In six studies [ 12 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ] it was not possible to identify the study design, or the provided information was not enough to qualify them.…”

“…Chemomechanical versus Control [ 12 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 59 ]…”

“…Twenty-three studies [ 12 , 15 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 59 ] reporting chemo-mechanical caries removal systems were included. Two [ 43 , 49 ] involved the use of Brix 3000, three [ 35 , 36 , 50 ] the use of Carie-care, nine [ 15 , 26 , 29 , 41 , 48 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 56 ] the use of Carisolv and thirteen [ 12 , 15 , 27 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 45 , 54 , 56 , 59 ] the use of Papacarie.…”

“…Regarding this intervention, one study [ 43 ] involved the use of Brix 3000, three studies [ 35 , 36 , 50 ] the use of Carie-care, five studies [ 26 , 29 , 48 , 51 , 53 ] the use of Carisolv, and nine [ 12 , 27 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 45 , 59 ] the use of Papacarie. All these studies had an overall unclear risk of bias.…”

“…All the fourteen included studies, all alternative treatment approaches demonstrated longer treatment time. Specifically, this aspect was reported in one study using Brix 3000 [ 43 ], in two studies that involved Carie-care [ 35 , 50 ], in three using Carisolv [ 26 , 48 , 51 ] and in two studies evaluating Papacarie [ 12 , 45 ].…”