Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

Publication:
April 2003
Volume 34 , Issue 4

Back
Share Abstract:

A comparative clinical study on the Carisolv caries removal method

Afrodite Kakaboura, DDS, MS; Costas Masouras, DDS; Olga Staikou, DDS; George Vougiouklakis, DDS, MS, FADM, FICD

Pages: 269-271
PMID: 12731612

Objective: Carisolv is a relatively new chemomechanical method for caries removal. The aim of this clinical study was to compare Carisolv with the conventional drilling technique. Method and materials: Forty-five volunteers, ages 18 to 55 years, each with two contralateral primary coronal mesio-occlusal or disto-occlusal carious lesions, similar in extent, participated in the study. Two calibrated operators treated all lesions. One operator treated both lesions in one visit (one lesion with Carisolv and the other with conventional drilling). Following the filling procedure, the opinion of each patient regarding each caries removal method was recorded. The need for drilling in addition to the Carisolv application, the time required for caries removal, the need for anesthesia, and the gingival reaction to the Carisolv gel were recorded by each operator for each case. Results: The patients found Carisolv treatment more pleasant (82%) and preferable (88%) to drilling. Of the patients treated with drilling, 40% required anesthesia compared to the 8% treated with Carisolv. Additional drilling for complete caries removal was needed in 10% of Carisolv-treated lesions. Carisolv induced no gingival reaction. Significantly longer times were required for caries removal with Carisolv (12.2 4.1 minutes) compared to drilling (6.8 2.8 minutes). Conclusions: The Carisolv technique was: (a) accepted by the majority of patients, (b) efficient for caries removal, (c) considered a time-consuming technique for the dentists, and (d) considered less dependent on local anesthesia.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog