Effectiveness of Different Methods in Removing Dentin Caries of Primary Teeth: Micro-CT and SEM Evaluation

Objectives: With the recent improvements in technology, the expectation of minimal invasion and maximal comfort in caries removal techniques is increasing. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of six caries removal methods in primary teeth. Study design: Sixty primary molars (10 teeth in each groups) were used. The groups were: Group I (Tungsten Carbide Bur), Group II (Sono abrasion), Group III (Air abrasion), Group IV (Carisolv), Group V (Er:YAG Laser), Group VI (ART). In micro-CT scanning, mineral density at the cavity floor was examined before and after caries removal. After caries removal, the patency of the dentinal tubules was examined in two teeth from each group on SEM images. Statistical analyses were performed using Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon tests. Results: For six different caries removal methods, tooth mineral (inorganic, total) densities at cavity floors were compared among the groups after the procedures, and no statistically significant difference was found (p>0.05). On the SEM images, it was seen that the dentinal tubules were exposed and no smear layer was formed in the Carisolv group. Significant rough surfaces were exposed in the laser group. Conclusion: It was observed that alternative caries removal methods are at least as effective as the traditional method in primary teeth for clinical applications.

Caries removal techniques; Micro-CT, mineralization; SEM; Smear; Tubule

1. Banerjee A, Watson TF, Kidd EA. Dentine caries excavation: a review of current clinical techniques. Br Dent J, 2000; 188: 476-82.

2. Law CS. Management of premature primary tooth loss in the child patient. J Calif Dent Assoc, 2013; 41: 612-8.

3. Pakkhesal M, Riyahi E, Naghavi Alhosseini A, Amdjadi P, Behnampour N. Impact of dental caries on oral health related quality of life among preschool children: perceptions of parents. BMC Oral Health, 2021; 21: 68.

4. Hassan AF, Yadav G, Tripathi AM, Mehrotra M, Saha S, Garg N. A Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Caries Excavation Techniques in reducing the Cariogenic Flora: An in vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent, 2016: 9: 214-7.

5. Volgenant CMC, de Soet JJ. Cross-transmission in the Dental Office: Does This Make You Ill? Curr Oral Health Rep, 2018; 5: 221-8.

6. Kedjarune U, Kukiattrakoon B, Yapong B, Chowanadisai S, Leggat P Bacterial aerosols in the dental clinic: influence of time, position and type of treatment, Int Dent J, 2000: 50: 103–7.

7. Zemouri C, de Soet H, Crielaard W, Laheij A. A coverage review on bio-aerosols in healthcare and dental environments. PLoS One, 2017; 12: e0178007.

8. Neves Ade A, Coutinho E, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Caries-removal effectiveness and minimal-invasiveness potential of caries-excavation techniques: a micro-CT investigation. J Dent, 2011; 39: 154-62.

9. Pereira AC, Eggertsson H, Martinez-Mier EA, Mialhe FL, Eckert GJ, Zero DT. Validity of caries detection on occlusal surfaces and treatment decisions based on results from multiple caries-detection methods. Eur J Oral Sci, 2009; 117: 51-7.

10. Kidd EA, Ricketts DN, Beighton D. Criteria for caries removal at the enamel-dentine junction: a clinical and microbiological study. Br Dent J, 1996; 180: 287-91.

11. de Oliveira Ortolan AS, Torres CP, Gomes-Silva JM, de Menezes-Oliveira MA, Pécora JD, Palma-Dibb RG, Borsatto MC. Effect of erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet laser parameters on ablation capacity and morphology of primary dentin. Photomed Laser Surg, 2009; 27: 885-90.

12. Kucuk EB, Malkoc S, Demir A. Microcomputed tomography evaluation of white spot lesion remineralization with various procedures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2016; 150: 483-90.

13. Divya G, Prasad MG, Vasa AA, Vasanthi D, Ramanarayana B, Mynampati P. Evaluation of the Efficacy of Caries Removal Using Polymer Bur, Stainless Steel Bur, Carisolv, Papacarie–An Invitro Comparative Study. J Clin Diagn Res, 2015; 9: 42-6.

14. Corrêa FN, Rocha Rde O, Rodrigues Filho LE, Muench A, Rodrigues CR. Chemical versus conventional caries removal techniques in primary teeth: a microhardness study. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 2007; 31: 187-92.

15. Celiberti P, Francescut P, Lussi A. Performance of four dentine excavation methods in deciduous teeth. Caries Res, 2006; 40: 117-23.

16. Flückiger L, Waltimo T, Stich H, Lussi A. Comparison of chemomechanical caries removal using Carisolv or conventional hand excavation in deciduous teeth in vitro. J Dent, 2005; 33: 87-90.

17. Soviero VM, Leal SC, Silva RC, Azevedo RB. Validity of MicroCT for in vitro detection of proximal carious lesions in primary molars. J Dent, 2012; 40: 35-40.

18. Mitropoulos P, Rahiotis C, Stamatakis H, Kakaboura A. Diagnostic performance of the visual caries classification system ICDAS II versus radiography and micro-computed tomography for proximal caries detection: an in vitro study. J Dent, 2010; 38: 859-67.

19. Nogueira Rocha Clementino Luedemann, T. Micro-computed tomography in caries research. Doctoral Dissertation, lmu. 2007

20. Erpaçal B, Adıgüzel Ö, Cangül S. The use of micro-computed tomography in dental applications. Int Dent Res, 2019; 9: 78-91.

21. Thomas AR, Nagraj SK, Mani R, Haribabu R. Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of caries removal using various minimally invasive techniques with conventional rotary instruments using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Int Oral Health, 2020; 12: 253-9.

22. Sontakke P, Jain P, Patil AD, Biswas G, Yadav P, Makkar DK, Jeph V, Sakina BP. A comparative study of the clinical efficiency of chemomechanical caries removal using Carie-Care gel for permanent teeth of children of age group of 12-15 years with that of conventional drilling method: A randomized controlled trial. Dent Res J (Isfahan), 2019; 16: 42-6.

23. Kitsahawong K, Seminario AL, Pungchanchaikul P, Rattanacharoenthum A, Pitiphat W. Chemomechanical versus drilling methods for caries removal: an in vitro study. Braz Oral Res, 2015; 29: 1-8.

24. Corrêa FN, Rodrigues Filho LE, Rodrigues CR. Evaluation of residual dentin after conventional and chemomechanical caries removal using SEM. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 2008; 32: 115-120.

25. Hamama HH, Yiu CK, Burrow MF, King NM. Chemical, morphological and microhardness changes of dentine after chemomechanical caries removal. Aust Dent J, 2013; 58: 283-92.

26. Maru VP, Shakuntala BS, Nagarathna C. Caries Removal by Chemome-chanical (Carisolv™) vs. Rotary Drill: A Systematic Review. Open Dent J, 2015; 31: 462-72.

27. 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. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent, 2010; 28:73-7.

28. Reddy MV, Shankar AJ, Pentakota VG, Kolli H, Ganta H, Katari PK. Efficacy of antimicrobial property of two commercially available chemome-chanical caries removal agents (Carisolv and Papacarie): An ex vivo study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 5, 2015; 183-9.

29. Thakur R, Patil SDS, Kush A, Madhu K. SEM Analysis of Residual Dentin Surface in Primary Teeth Using Different Chemomechanical Caries Removal Agents. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 2017; 41: 289-93.

30. Tsanova STs, Tomov GT. Morphological changes in hard dental tissues prepared by Er:YAG laser (LiteTouch, Syneron), Carisolv and rotary instruments. A scanning electron microscopy evaluation. Folia Med (Plovdiv), 2010; 52:46-55.

31. Al-Batayneh OB, Seow WK, Walsh LJ. Assessment of Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation in primary and permanent teeth: a scanning electron microscopy and thermographic study. Pediatr Dent, 2014; 36: 90-4.