Caries Removal by Chemomechanical (Carisolv (TM)) vs. Rotary Drill: A Systematic Review

被引:20
|
作者
Maru, Viral P. [1 ]
Shakuntala, B. S. [1 ]
Nagarathna, C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Rajarajeswari Dent Coll & Hosp, Dept Pedodont & Prevent Dent, Mysore Rd, Bangalore 560074, Karnataka, India
来源
OPEN DENTISTRY JOURNAL | 2015年 / 9卷
关键词
Caries removal; carisolv; chemomechanical; dental caries; pain perception; rotary drill;
D O I
10.2174/1874210601509010462
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background: Chemomechanical caries removal is an effective alternative to the traditional rotary drilling method. The advantages of chemomechanical techniques in terms of the need for anesthesia, pain perception and patient preference are systematically reviewed and a meta-analysis of the time required for caries removal is reported. Method: Randomized controlled studies of comparison of chemomechanical techniques with conventional rotary drill were selected from a systematic search of standard biomedical databases, including the PubMed and Cochrane clinical trials. Non-repeated search results were screened for relevance and risk of bias assessment, followed by methodology assessment. Statistical models were applied to the outcome parameters - time required, pain perception, need of anesthesia and patient preference - extracted from the studies. Results: Out of the 111 non-repeated search results, 26 studies receiving a low bias score were selected for the review, and 16 randomized clinical trials of rotary and Carisolv techniques were considered for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis by fixed effect as well as random effect models indicate that Carisolv takes more time (3.65 +/- 0.05 and 4.09 +/- 0.29 min) than rotary drill (8.65 +/- 0.09 and 8.97 +/- 0.66 min) method. Advantages of reduced pain (14.67 for Carisolv vs. 6.76 for rotary drill), need for anesthesia (1.59% vs. 10.52%) outweigh the longer time requirement and make it the preferred (18.68% vs. 4.69%) method. Conclusion: Chemomechanical techniques stand out as a minimally invasive and preferred method based on the meta-analyses. Evaluation of pain experienced using robust methods is needed to strengthen the evidence for their use.
引用
收藏
页码:462 / 472
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Randomized Trial of Partial vs. Stepwise Caries Removal: 3-year Follow-up
    Maltz, M.
    Garcia, R.
    Jardim, J. J.
    de Paula, L. M.
    Yamaguti, P. M.
    Moura, M. S.
    Garcia, F.
    Nascimento, C.
    Oliveira, A.
    Mestrinho, H. D.
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2012, 91 (11) : 1026 - 1031
  • [42] Influence of the chemomechanical and mechanical carious tissue removal on the risk of restorative failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Rossoni, Natalia Bregalda
    Cavalheiro, Cleber Paradzinski
    Casagrande, Luciano
    Lenzi, Tathiane Larissa
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2022, 26 (11) : 6457 - 6467
  • [43] Influence of the chemomechanical and mechanical carious tissue removal on the risk of restorative failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Natália Bregalda Rossoni
    Cleber Paradzinski Cavalheiro
    Luciano Casagrande
    Tathiane Larissa Lenzi
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2022, 26 : 6457 - 6467
  • [44] SYSTEMATIC VS. NON-SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY FOR PUBLICATION IN LEADING JOURNALS
    Lilley, H.
    Payne, R.
    Fox, D.
    Brown, R. J.
    Fountain, D.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2020, 23 : S614 - S614
  • [45] Efficacy and Patient's Acceptance of Alternative Methods for Caries Removal-A Systematic Review
    Cardoso, Miguel
    Coelho, Ana
    Lima, Rui
    Amaro, Ines
    Paula, Anabela
    Marto, Carlos Miguel
    Sousa, Jose
    Spagnuolo, Gianrico
    Marques Ferreira, Manuel
    Carrilho, Eunice
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (11) : 1 - 28
  • [46] Laparoscopy vs. laparotomy for advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review of the literature
    Gueli Alletti, Salvatore
    Capozzi, Vito A.
    Rosati, Andrea
    De Blasis, Ilaria
    Cianci, Stefano
    Vizzielli, Giuseppe
    Uccella, Stefano
    Gallotta, Valerio
    Fanfani, Francesco
    Fagotti, Anna
    Scambia, Giovanni
    MINERVA MEDICA, 2019, 110 (04) : 341 - 357
  • [47] GnRH agonist vs. antagonist in assisted reproduction: an updated systematic review
    Al-Inany, H.
    AbouSetta, A.
    Mansour, R.
    Serour, G.
    Aboulghar, M.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2006, 21 : I2 - I2
  • [48] PORP vs. TORP in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis*
    Omar, Mahmoud
    McCoy, Jennifer L.
    Kitsko, Dennis J.
    Chi, David H.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY, 2023, 44 (01)
  • [49] Omalizumab vs. placebo in the management of chronic idiopathic urticaria: a systematic review
    Carrillo, Diana C.
    Sanchez Borges, Mario
    Garcia, Elizabeth
    Egea, Eduardo
    Serrano, Carlos D.
    WORLD ALLERGY ORGANIZATION JOURNAL, 2014, 7
  • [50] Object Relational Mapping Vs. Event-Sourcing: Systematic Review
    Michail, Pantelelis
    Christos, Kalloniatis
    ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT AND THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE, EGOVIS 2022, 2022, 13429 : 18 - 31