Minimal Invasive Potential of Three Caries Excavation Methods in Children


Minimal Invasive Potential of Three Caries Excavation Methods in Children


Mohamed Khalifa Zayet1, Sherif Bahgat El-Taweil2, Sara Ahmed Mahmoud2, Soad Abdelmoniem2

1Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University.
2Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University


American Journal of Geographical Research and Reviews

Background: Recently, the concept of minimally invasive (MI) dentistry has emerged. MI calls for the selective removal of heavily infected and irreversibly denatured dentin caused by carious lesions while preserving dentin that is demineralized but not infected. Aim: To compare the minimal invasive potential (MIP) of conventional caries excavation (CCE), caries detection dye (CDD), and fluorescence aided caries excavation (FACE) methods in children. Subjects and Methods: A total of 105 carious primary molars in 43 children were included in this study. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups according to the caries excavation method. Preoperative evaluation of the carious teeth was performed using digital radiography after sealing the cavities with a radiopaque material. Caries excavation was performed using CCE, CDD, or FACE method. The teeth were restored using self-cured glass ionomer. Post-operative radiographic examination was then performed. Pre-operative and post-operative widths and depths for the cavities were assessed. MIP was determined by comparing the prepared-cavity width and depth relative to the initial width and depth of the caries lesion, respectively. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the MIP of examined groups neither after comparing cavity widths at p=0.253 nor depths at p=0.06. FACE showed the highest mean values of MIP potential for cavity widths (1.41±0.36) and depths (2.04±0.74). Conclusions: CCE, CDD, and FACE showed comparable MIP in children.


Keywords: Minimal invasive; Caries detection dye; Fluorescence

Free Full-text PDF


How to cite this article:
Mohamed Khalifa Zayet, Sherif Bahgat El-Taweil, Sara Ahmed Mahmoud, Soad Abdelmoniem. Minimal Invasive Potential of Three Caries Excavation Methods in Children. International Journal of Dental Research and Reviews, 2019, 2:18. DOI: 10.28933/ijdrr-2019-05-2708


References:
1. Ferreira JMS, Pinheiro SL, Sampaio FC, Menezes VA. Use of GlassIonomer Cement Containing Antibiotics to Seal off Infected Dentin: a Randomized Clinical Trial. Braz Dent J 2013; 24(1): 68-73.
2. White JM, Eakle WS. Rationale and Treatment Approach in Minimally Invasive Dentistry. JADA 2000; 131:13S- 19S
3. Ganesh M, Parikh D. Chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) agents: Review and clinical application in primary teeth. J. Dent. Oral Hyg. 2011; 3(3): 34-45.
4. Prabhakar AR, Taranjot KAUR, Basappa N. Comparative Evaluation of Carisolv in Removal of Carious Dentin in Primary Molar Teeth: in vitro Study. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr 2009; 9(1): 77-80.
5. Goomer P, Jain RL, Kaur H, Sood R. Comparison of the Efficacy of Chemicomechanical Caries Removal with Conventional Methods – A Clinical Study. J Int Oral Health 2013; 5(3):42-47.
6. Marczuk-Kolada G, Łuczaj-Cepowicz E, Chorzewska E. Clinical comparison of two minimally invasive methods of caries treatment in deciduous teeth. J Stoma 2011; 64(12): 917-928.
7. Panov VE, Damyanova DM. Changes in Values Measured with Diagnodent for Enamel And Dentin of Deciduous Teeth Etched for Different Time Intervals. J of IMAB 2014; 20(3): 589- 591.
8. Zhang X, Tu R, Yin W, Zhou X, Li X, Hu D. Micro-computerized tomography assessment of fluorescence aided caries excavation (FACE) technology: comparison with three other caries removal techniques. Aust Dent J 2013; 58: 461–467.
9. Lennon AM, Attin T, Martens S, Buchalla W. Fluorescence-aided Caries Excavation (FACE), Caries Detector, and Conventional Caries Excavation in Primary Teeth. Pediatr Dent 2009; 31(4): 316-319.
10. Innes NPT, Evans DJP. Modern approaches to caries management of the primary dentition. Br Dent J 2013; 214(11): 559- 566.
11. Lennon AM, Buchalla W, Rassner B, Becker K, Attin T. Efficiency of 4 Caries Excavation Methods Compared. Oper Dent 2006; 31(5): 551-555.
12. Pandit I K, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M, Verma L. Various methods of caries removal in children: A comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007; June :93-96
13. Gugnani N, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gupta M, Gugnani S. Light induced fluorescence evaluation: A novel concept for caries diagnosis and excavation. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:418-22.
14. Galina P, Simona S, Sorin A, Angela G, Claudiu T, Ion P, Stefan L. The Role and Importance of The Caries Detectors Dyes in Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Dental Caries. Romanian Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2010; 2(3): 26-28.
15. Nevesa AA, Coutinhob E, Cardosoc MV, Lambrechtsd P, Meerbeeke BV. Current Concepts and Techniques for Caries Excavation and Adhesion to Residual Dentin. J Adhes Dent 2011; 13: 7-22.
16. Neves AA, Coutinho E, Munck J, Meerbeek BV. Caries-removal effectiveness and minimal-invasiveness potential of caries-excavation techniques: A micro-CT investigation. J Dent 2011; 39: 154-162.
17. Lennon AM, Attin T, Buchalla W. Quantity of Remaining Bacteria and Cavity Size After Excavation with FACE, Caries Detector Dye and Conventional Excavation In Vitro. Oper Dent 2007; 32(3): 236-241.
18. Boob AR, Manjula M, Reddy ER, Srilaxmi N, Rani T. Evaluation of the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Three Minimally Invasive Methods of Caries Removal: An in vitro Study. IJCPD 2014;7(1):11-18.
19. Bohari MR, Chunawalla YK, Ahmed BMN. Clinical Evaluation of Caries Removal in Primary Teeth using Conventional, Chemomechanical and Laser Technique: An in vivo study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(1):40-47.
20. Banerjee A. Minimal intervention dentistry: part 7. Minimally invasive operative caries management: rationale and techniques. Br Dent J 2013; 214(3): 107- 111.