Comparison of clinical performance of newer chemo-mechanical caries removal system and conventional cavity preparation technique in children
Keywords:
chemical removal of caries, Brix 3000, caries removal, efficacy, pain assessmentAbstract
Objective: The study was aimed to compare the clinical performance of newer chemo-mechanical caries removal system and conventional cavity preparation technique in children. Study Design: Forty primary molars or first permanent molars of twenty children between the age groups of seven to ten years were selected randomly and divided into two groups of twenty teeth each: Group I was treated by the mechanical method and Group II with Brix 3000 gel method. The efficacy, time taken, and the pain threshold were evaluated during the caries removal by Ericson D et al. scale, stopwatch and modified visual analog scale, respectively. The preferred choice of treatment was assessed using a questionnaire. Results: The comparison between the time taken by the two methods showed a significant difference (P < 0.05). The caries removal efficacy indicated a significant difference as well ( P < 0.05). The pain rating results indicated a notable difference in the mean Visual Analogue Scale score (P = 0.001). The comparison between the two choices of treatment indicated a significant difference at p≤0.05. Conclusion: It was concluded that airotor was efficient in caries removal and while Brix 300 had lower pain rating and better patient acceptance.
Downloads
References
Banerjee A, Kidd EAM, Watson TF. In vitro Evaluation of Five Alternative Methods of Carious Dentine Excavation. Caries Research. 2000;34(2):144-150. doi:10.1159/000016582
Çolak H, Dülgergil Ç, Dalli M, Hamidi M. Early childhood caries update: A review of causes, diagnoses, and treatments. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine. 2013;4(1):29-38. doi:10.4103/0976-9668.107257
ericson1999.
Felizardo KR, Barradas NP de A, Guedes GF, Ferreira FDCA, Lopes MB. Use of BRIX-3000 Enzymatic Gel in Mechanical Chemical Removal of Caries: Clinical Case Report. Journal of Health Sciences. 2018;20(2):87. doi:10.17921/2447-8938.2018v20n2p87-93
Garra G, Singer AJ, Domingo A, Thode HC. The Wong-Baker Pain FACES Scale Measures Pain, Not Fear.; 2013. www.pec-online.com
Geetha Priya P, Asokan S, John J, Punithavathy R, Karthick K. Comparison of behavioral response to caries removal methods: A randomised controlled cross over trial. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2014;32(1):48-52. doi:10.4103/0970-4388.127055
Hegde AM, C. P v., Shetty A, Shetty S. CLINICAL EVALUATION OF CHEMO-BECHANICAL CARIES REMOVAL USING CARIE-CARE SYSTEM AMONG SCHOOL CHILDREN. Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU. 2014;04(03):080-084. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1703807
Hegde RJ, Chaudhari S. Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical and Chemo-mechanical Methods of Caries Excavation: An In Vivo Study. Journal of International Oral Health. 2016;8(3):357-361. doi:10.2047/jioh-08-03-11
Jawa D, Singh S, Somani R, Jaidka S, Sirkar K, Jaidka R. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal agent (Papacarie) and conventional method of caries removal: An in vitro study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2010;28(2):73-77. doi:10.4103/0970-4388.66739
Kazeminia M, Abdi A, Shohaimi S, et al. Dental caries in primary and permanent teeth in children’s worldwide, 1995 to 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Head and Face Medicine. 2020;16(1). doi:10.1186/s13005-020-00237-z
Kochhar GK, Srivastava N, Pandit I, Gugnani N, Gupta M. An Evaluation of Different Caries Removal Techniques in Primary Teeth: A Comparitive Clinical Study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2011;36(1):5-10. doi:10.17796/jcpd.36.1.u2421l4j68847215
Maragakis GM, Hahn P, Hellwig E. Chemomechanical caries removal: A comprehensive review of the literature. International Dental Journal. 2001;51(4):291-299. doi:10.1002/j.1875-595X.2001.tb00841.x
Rafique S, Fiske J, Banerjee A. Clinical trial of an air-abrasion/chemomechanical operative procedure for the restorative treatment of dental patients. Caries Research. 2003;37(5):360-364. doi:10.1159/000072168
Shankar Narayan G, Sundaram Rajasekaran M. EVOLUTION AND MECHANISM OF DENTAL HANDPIECES.; 2018. http://www.journalcra.com
Soni HK, Sharma A, Sood PB. A comparative clinical study of various methods of caries removal in children. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2015;16(1):19-26. doi:10.1007/s40368-014-0140-1
Zinck JH, Mcinnes-Ledoux P, Capdebosco C. Chemomechanical Caries Removal-a Clinical Evaluation. Vol 15.; 1988.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2021 International journal of health sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the International Journal of Health Sciences (IJHS) are available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Authors retain copyright in their work and grant IJHS right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles in this journal, and to use them for any other lawful purpose.
Articles published in IJHS can be copied, communicated and shared in their published form for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given to the author and the journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
This copyright notice applies to articles published in IJHS volumes 4 onwards. Please read about the copyright notices for previous volumes under Journal History.
