COMPARISON OF TWO AEROSOL-FREE CARIES REMOVAL METHODS - A SPLIT MOUTH RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

Objectives: The management of deep caries lesions in immature permanent molars might be challenging in clinical practice. Minimally invasive caries removal methods can maintain apexogenesis by preventing extensive tissue loss. Here we compare the chemo-mechanical caries removal (CMCR) gel and the po...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Canan Duman, Elif Kalaoğlu, Belen Şirinoğlu Çapan, Edibe Egil
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Cumhuriyet University 2021-09-01
Series:Cumhuriyet Dental Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1716036
_version_ 1797699306992435200
author Canan Duman
Elif Kalaoğlu
Belen Şirinoğlu Çapan
Edibe Egil
author_facet Canan Duman
Elif Kalaoğlu
Belen Şirinoğlu Çapan
Edibe Egil
author_sort Canan Duman
collection DOAJ
description Objectives: The management of deep caries lesions in immature permanent molars might be challenging in clinical practice. Minimally invasive caries removal methods can maintain apexogenesis by preventing extensive tissue loss. Here we compare the chemo-mechanical caries removal (CMCR) gel and the polymer bur in terms of time spent on caries removal, patient acceptability, and clinical success. Materials and Methods: The teeth of 30 children were randomly divided into two groups. The duration of each method, the level of cooperation during each method, and the child’s choice of caries removal method were recorded. Patients were followed at 6-month intervals for at least 2 years. Results: The difference between the patients’ preferences was not statistically significant, while the average caries removal time of the polymer bur method was significantly shorter (p < 0.05). The rates of apical closure without pathology in CMCR and polymer bur groups were 63.2% and 73.7%, respectively, whereas 10% of each group underwent further treatments due to the clinical and/or radiographic pathology. Conclusions: These methods were thought to serve as an interim treatment in managing immature permanent teeth with deep caries. Furthermore, these methods, which do not involve water cooling, can also minimize the risk of contamination and cross-infection.
first_indexed 2024-03-12T04:07:10Z
format Article
id doaj.art-c63d8b9d4f88446ea4680113c000eddc
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1302-5805
2146-2852
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-12T04:07:10Z
publishDate 2021-09-01
publisher Cumhuriyet University
record_format Article
series Cumhuriyet Dental Journal
spelling doaj.art-c63d8b9d4f88446ea4680113c000eddc2023-09-03T11:17:23ZengCumhuriyet UniversityCumhuriyet Dental Journal1302-58052146-28522021-09-0124326627310.7126/cumudj.9200582057COMPARISON OF TWO AEROSOL-FREE CARIES REMOVAL METHODS - A SPLIT MOUTH RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALCanan Duman0Elif Kalaoğlu1Belen Şirinoğlu Çapan2Edibe Egil3İSTANBUL ATLAS ÜNİVERSİTESİBIRUNI UNIVERSITYBIRUNI UNIVERSITYISTANBUL GELISIM UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF DENTISTRY, DENTISTRY PR. (PAID)Objectives: The management of deep caries lesions in immature permanent molars might be challenging in clinical practice. Minimally invasive caries removal methods can maintain apexogenesis by preventing extensive tissue loss. Here we compare the chemo-mechanical caries removal (CMCR) gel and the polymer bur in terms of time spent on caries removal, patient acceptability, and clinical success. Materials and Methods: The teeth of 30 children were randomly divided into two groups. The duration of each method, the level of cooperation during each method, and the child’s choice of caries removal method were recorded. Patients were followed at 6-month intervals for at least 2 years. Results: The difference between the patients’ preferences was not statistically significant, while the average caries removal time of the polymer bur method was significantly shorter (p < 0.05). The rates of apical closure without pathology in CMCR and polymer bur groups were 63.2% and 73.7%, respectively, whereas 10% of each group underwent further treatments due to the clinical and/or radiographic pathology. Conclusions: These methods were thought to serve as an interim treatment in managing immature permanent teeth with deep caries. Furthermore, these methods, which do not involve water cooling, can also minimize the risk of contamination and cross-infection.https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1716036dental atraumatic restorative treatmentpermenantpainpapainpolymer bur
spellingShingle Canan Duman
Elif Kalaoğlu
Belen Şirinoğlu Çapan
Edibe Egil
COMPARISON OF TWO AEROSOL-FREE CARIES REMOVAL METHODS - A SPLIT MOUTH RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal
dental atraumatic restorative treatment
permenant
pain
papain
polymer bur
title COMPARISON OF TWO AEROSOL-FREE CARIES REMOVAL METHODS - A SPLIT MOUTH RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
title_full COMPARISON OF TWO AEROSOL-FREE CARIES REMOVAL METHODS - A SPLIT MOUTH RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
title_fullStr COMPARISON OF TWO AEROSOL-FREE CARIES REMOVAL METHODS - A SPLIT MOUTH RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
title_full_unstemmed COMPARISON OF TWO AEROSOL-FREE CARIES REMOVAL METHODS - A SPLIT MOUTH RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
title_short COMPARISON OF TWO AEROSOL-FREE CARIES REMOVAL METHODS - A SPLIT MOUTH RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
title_sort comparison of two aerosol free caries removal methods a split mouth randomized clinical trial
topic dental atraumatic restorative treatment
permenant
pain
papain
polymer bur
url https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1716036
work_keys_str_mv AT cananduman comparisonoftwoaerosolfreecariesremovalmethodsasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT elifkalaoglu comparisonoftwoaerosolfreecariesremovalmethodsasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT belensirinoglucapan comparisonoftwoaerosolfreecariesremovalmethodsasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial
AT edibeegil comparisonoftwoaerosolfreecariesremovalmethodsasplitmouthrandomizedclinicaltrial