Chemomechanical versus drilling methods for caries removal: an in vitro study
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Brazilian Oral Research |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242015000100315 |
Resumo: | The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) with that of conventional drilling for efficacy of caries removal, time spent, morphological changes and microhardness of surface dentin, and microleakage of subsequent restorations. Forty-six carious deciduous molars were randomly divided into two groups: one each for caries removal by (1) CMCR and by (2) drilling. The completeness of caries removal was evaluated by visual and tactile criteria and a caries detector device. Twenty teeth in each group were restored with glass ionomer (GI) and subjected to thermocycling before undergoing microleakage and microhardness tests. In each group, three restored teeth were used for polarized light microscopic analysis, and three unrestored teeth for scanning electron microscopy (SEM). There was no significant difference in the completeness of caries removal between groups. However, time spent for caries removal by CMCR was significantly longer than that required for drilling. Restorations in the CMCR group had significantly more microleakage than those in the drilling group. Dentin hardness of the cavity floor after CMCR was also significantly lower. Microscopic analyses showed roughened and irregular dentin surfaces in the CMCR group, unlike the smooth surfaces observed in the drilling group. In conclusion, CMCR was as efficacious as drilling in term of completeness of caries removal, but required longer excavation times and resulted in lower microhardness of residual dentin as well as more microleakage after restorations with GI. Further laboratory and clinical evaluations on the efficiency and performance of CMCR for the durability of subsequent restorations are required. |
id |
SBPQO-1_312b171089ff509f6c3e7b83030d7ad3 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1806-83242015000100315 |
network_acronym_str |
SBPQO-1 |
network_name_str |
Brazilian Oral Research |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Chemomechanical versus drilling methods for caries removal: an in vitro studyDental CariesPapainDentinThe purpose of this study was to compare the performance of chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) with that of conventional drilling for efficacy of caries removal, time spent, morphological changes and microhardness of surface dentin, and microleakage of subsequent restorations. Forty-six carious deciduous molars were randomly divided into two groups: one each for caries removal by (1) CMCR and by (2) drilling. The completeness of caries removal was evaluated by visual and tactile criteria and a caries detector device. Twenty teeth in each group were restored with glass ionomer (GI) and subjected to thermocycling before undergoing microleakage and microhardness tests. In each group, three restored teeth were used for polarized light microscopic analysis, and three unrestored teeth for scanning electron microscopy (SEM). There was no significant difference in the completeness of caries removal between groups. However, time spent for caries removal by CMCR was significantly longer than that required for drilling. Restorations in the CMCR group had significantly more microleakage than those in the drilling group. Dentin hardness of the cavity floor after CMCR was also significantly lower. Microscopic analyses showed roughened and irregular dentin surfaces in the CMCR group, unlike the smooth surfaces observed in the drilling group. In conclusion, CMCR was as efficacious as drilling in term of completeness of caries removal, but required longer excavation times and resulted in lower microhardness of residual dentin as well as more microleakage after restorations with GI. Further laboratory and clinical evaluations on the efficiency and performance of CMCR for the durability of subsequent restorations are required.Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO2015-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242015000100315Brazilian Oral Research v.29 n.1 2015reponame:Brazilian Oral Researchinstname:Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)instacron:SBPQO10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0127info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKITSAHAWONG,KempornSEMINARIO,Ana LuciaPUNGCHANCHAIKUL,PatimapornRATTANACHAROENTHUM,AnomaPITIPHAT,Waranucheng2018-08-17T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1806-83242015000100315Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/bor/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phppob@edu.usp.br||bor@sbpqo.org.br1807-31071806-8324opendoar:2018-08-17T00:00Brazilian Oral Research - Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Chemomechanical versus drilling methods for caries removal: an in vitro study |
title |
Chemomechanical versus drilling methods for caries removal: an in vitro study |
spellingShingle |
Chemomechanical versus drilling methods for caries removal: an in vitro study KITSAHAWONG,Kemporn Dental Caries Papain Dentin |
title_short |
Chemomechanical versus drilling methods for caries removal: an in vitro study |
title_full |
Chemomechanical versus drilling methods for caries removal: an in vitro study |
title_fullStr |
Chemomechanical versus drilling methods for caries removal: an in vitro study |
title_full_unstemmed |
Chemomechanical versus drilling methods for caries removal: an in vitro study |
title_sort |
Chemomechanical versus drilling methods for caries removal: an in vitro study |
author |
KITSAHAWONG,Kemporn |
author_facet |
KITSAHAWONG,Kemporn SEMINARIO,Ana Lucia PUNGCHANCHAIKUL,Patimaporn RATTANACHAROENTHUM,Anoma PITIPHAT,Waranuch |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
SEMINARIO,Ana Lucia PUNGCHANCHAIKUL,Patimaporn RATTANACHAROENTHUM,Anoma PITIPHAT,Waranuch |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
KITSAHAWONG,Kemporn SEMINARIO,Ana Lucia PUNGCHANCHAIKUL,Patimaporn RATTANACHAROENTHUM,Anoma PITIPHAT,Waranuch |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Dental Caries Papain Dentin |
topic |
Dental Caries Papain Dentin |
description |
The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) with that of conventional drilling for efficacy of caries removal, time spent, morphological changes and microhardness of surface dentin, and microleakage of subsequent restorations. Forty-six carious deciduous molars were randomly divided into two groups: one each for caries removal by (1) CMCR and by (2) drilling. The completeness of caries removal was evaluated by visual and tactile criteria and a caries detector device. Twenty teeth in each group were restored with glass ionomer (GI) and subjected to thermocycling before undergoing microleakage and microhardness tests. In each group, three restored teeth were used for polarized light microscopic analysis, and three unrestored teeth for scanning electron microscopy (SEM). There was no significant difference in the completeness of caries removal between groups. However, time spent for caries removal by CMCR was significantly longer than that required for drilling. Restorations in the CMCR group had significantly more microleakage than those in the drilling group. Dentin hardness of the cavity floor after CMCR was also significantly lower. Microscopic analyses showed roughened and irregular dentin surfaces in the CMCR group, unlike the smooth surfaces observed in the drilling group. In conclusion, CMCR was as efficacious as drilling in term of completeness of caries removal, but required longer excavation times and resulted in lower microhardness of residual dentin as well as more microleakage after restorations with GI. Further laboratory and clinical evaluations on the efficiency and performance of CMCR for the durability of subsequent restorations are required. |
publishDate |
2015 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242015000100315 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242015000100315 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0127 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Oral Research v.29 n.1 2015 reponame:Brazilian Oral Research instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO) instacron:SBPQO |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO) |
instacron_str |
SBPQO |
institution |
SBPQO |
reponame_str |
Brazilian Oral Research |
collection |
Brazilian Oral Research |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Oral Research - Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
pob@edu.usp.br||bor@sbpqo.org.br |
_version_ |
1750318324366966784 |