Revista Biomédica Revisada Por Pares
Para Descargar PDF debe Abrir sesión.
Palabras clave: chemomechanical caries removal, caries removal, dental caries, minimally invasive dentistry, Epistemonikos, GRADE
INTRODUCTION
Dental caries have been traditionally managed with the non-selective removal of carious tissue (total removal). However, the adverse effects and fear that this technique produces in patients has promoted the use of more conservative caries removal techniques such as chemo-mechanical removal, but there is still controversy regarding its effectiveness and safety.
METHODS
We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings tables using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
We identified seven systematic reviews including 34 studies overall, of which 30 correspond to randomized trials. We concluded that chemo-mechanical caries removal probably reduces the need for anesthesia. Additionally, chemo-mechanical caries removal may decrease the pain experienced by the patient, decrease the risk of restoration failure and increase the time of the procedure for the removal of deep caries, but the certainty of the evidence is low. We are uncertain whether chemo-mechanical caries removal reduces the risk of pulp exposure as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low.
INTRODUCTION
Dental caries have been traditionally managed with the non-selective removal of carious tissue (total removal). However, the adverse effects and fear that this technique produces in patients has promoted the use of more conservative caries removal techniques such as chemo-mechanical removal, but there is still controversy regarding its effectiveness and safety.
METHODS
We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings tables using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
We identified seven systematic reviews including 34 studies overall, of which 30 correspond to randomized trials. We concluded that chemo-mechanical caries removal probably reduces the need for anesthesia. Additionally, chemo-mechanical caries removal may decrease the pain experienced by the patient, decrease the risk of restoration failure and increase the time of the procedure for the removal of deep caries, but the certainty of the evidence is low. We are uncertain whether chemo-mechanical caries removal reduces the risk of pulp exposure as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low.
Autores:
Paula Zambrano-Achig[1,2], Andrés Viteri-García[1,2], Francisca Verdugo-Paiva[2,3]
Citación: Zambrano-Achig , Viteri-García , Verdugo-Paiva . Chemo-mechanical removal versus conventional removal for deep caries lesion. Medwave 2022;22(01):e8319 doi: 10.5867/medwave.2022.01.8320
Fecha de envío: 4/5/2020
Fecha de aceptación: 15/1/2021
Fecha de publicación: 28/1/2022
Origen: Este artículo es producto del Epistemonikos Evidence Synthesis Project de la Fundación Epistemonikos, en colaboración con Medwave para su publicación.
Tipo de revisión: Con revisión por pares sin ciego por parte del equipo metodológico del Centro Evidencia UC Synthesis Project
Nos complace que usted tenga interés en comentar uno de nuestros artículos. Su comentario será publicado inmediatamente. No obstante, Medwave se reserva el derecho a eliminarlo posteriormente si la dirección editorial considera que su comentario es: ofensivo en algún sentido, irrelevante, trivial, contiene errores de lenguaje, contiene arengas políticas, obedece a fines comerciales, contiene datos de alguna persona en particular, o sugiere cambios en el manejo de pacientes que no hayan sido publicados previamente en alguna revista con revisión por pares.
Aún no hay comentarios en este artículo.
Para comentar debe iniciar sesión
Medwave publica las vistas HTML y descargas PDF por artículo, junto con otras métricas de redes sociales.
Petersen P, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, Estupinan-Day S, Ndiaye C. The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bull World Heal Organ. 2005;83(9):661–9. Roberson TM, Heymann H, Swift EJ, Sturdevant CM. Sturdevant’s Art and science of operative dentistry. 2002. 60–128 p. White J, Eakle W. Rationale and treatment approach in minimally invasive dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131.
Banerjee A. Minimal intervention dentistry: part 7. Minimally invasive operative caries management: rationale and techniques. Br Dent J. 2013;214(3):107–11. Armfi J, Spencer A. Changes in South Australian children’s caries experience: is caries re-surfacing? Aust Dent J. 2004;49(4):2–12. Yip H, Stevenson A, Beeley A. Chemomechanical removal of dental caries in deciduous teeth: further studies in vitro. BDJ. 1999;186(4):179–82. Goldman M, Kronman J. A preliminary report on a chemomechanical means of removing caries. J Am Dent Assoc. 1976;93(6):1149–53. Doglas C, Ana F, Franciele O, Eloisa B, Bruno C. Effect of Carisolv and Papacarie on the resin dentin bond strength in sound and caries affected primary molars. Braz J Oral Sci. 2010;9:25–9. Schwendicke F, Paris S, Tu Y. Effects of using different criteria for caries removal: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(1):1–15. Lai G, Lara Capi C, Cocco F, Cagetti MG, Lingstrom P, Almhojd U, et al. Comparison of Carisolv system vs traditional rotating instruments for caries removal in the primary dentition: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015;73(8):569–80. Li R, Zhao Y, Ye L. How to make choice of the carious removal methods, Carisolv or traditional drilling? A meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2014. Maru VP, Shakuntala, B.S. Nagarathna C. Caries Removal by Chemomechanical (CarisolvTM) vs. Rotary Drill: A Systematic Review. Dent J. 2015;9:462–72. Deng Y, Feng G, Hu B, Kuang Y, Song J. Effects of Papacarie on children with dental caries in primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018. Hamama H, Yiu C, Burrow M, King N. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials on Chemomechanical Caries Removal. Oper Dent. 2015;40(4):167–78. Yun J, Shim Y-S, Park S-Y, An S-Y. New treatment method for pain and reduction of local anesthesia use in deep caries. J Dent Anesth Pain Med. 2018;18(5):277–85. Balciuniene I, Sabalaite R, Juskiene I. Chemomechanical caries removal for children. Stomatologija. 2005;7(2):40–4. Kakaboura A, Masouras C, Staikou O, Vougiouklakis G. A comparative clinical study on the Carisolv caries removal method. Quintessence Int (Berl). 2003;34(4):269–71. Bohari M, Chunawalla Y, Ahmed B. Clinical evaluation of caries removal in primary teeth using conventional chemomechanical and laser technique: An in vivo study. J Contemp Dent Pr. 2012;13(1):40–7. Singh S, Singh DJ, Jaidka S, Somani R. Comparative clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal agent Papacarie® with conventional method among rural population in India - in vivo study Sanjeet Singh. Brazilian J Oral Sci. 2011;10(3). Anegundi R, Patil S, Tegginmani V, Shetty S. A comparative microbiological study to assess caries excavation by conventional rotary method and a chemo-mechanical method. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012;3(4):388–92. Kavvadia K, Karagianni V, Polychronopoulou A, Papagiannouli L. Primary teeth caries removal using the Carisolv chemomechanical method: a clinical trial. Pediatr Dent. 2004;26(1):23–8. Matsumoto S, Motta L, Alfaya T, Guedes C, Fernandes K, Bussadori SK. Assessment of chemomechanical removal of carious lesions using Papacarie Duo: randomized longitudinal clinical trial. Indian J Dent Res. 2013;24(4):488–492. Kotb R, Abdella A, El Kateb M, Ahmed A. Clinical evaluation of Papacarie in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2009;34(2):117–23. Bergmann J, Leitão J, Kultje C, Bergmann D, João C. Removing dentine caries in deciduous teeth with Carisolv: A randomised, controlled, prospective study with six-month follow-up, comparing chemomechanical treatment with drilling. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2005;3(2):105–11. Peric T, Markovic D, Petrovic B. Clinical evaluation of a chemomechanical method for caries removal in children and adolescents. Acta Odontol Scand. 2009;67(5):277–28. Peters M, Flamenbaum M, Eboda N, Feigal R, Inglehart M. Chemomechanical caries removal in children: Efficacy and efficiency. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(12):1658–66. Goomer P, Jain R, Kaur H, Sood R. Comparison of the efficacy of chemicomechanical caries removal with conventional methods: A clinical study. J Int Oral Heal. 2013;5(3):42–7. Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, Gotrick B, Bornstein R, Thorell J. Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemo-mechanical removal of caries. A multi-centre study. Caries Res. 1999;33(3):171–7. Inglehart M, Peters M, Flamenbaum M, Eboda N, Feigal R. Chemomechanical caries removal in children: an operator’s and pediatric patients’ responses. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(1):47–55. Lozano-Chourio MA, Zambrano O, Gonzalez H, Quero M. Clinical randomized controlled trial of chemomechanical caries removal (Carisolv). Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006 May;16(3):161–7. Maragakis G, Hahn P, Hellwig E. Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal in primary molars and its acceptance by patients. Caries Res. 2001;35(3):205–10. Zinck J, McInnes-Ledoux, P Capdeboscq C, Weinberg R. Chemomechanical caries removal – a clinical evaluation. J Oral Rehab. 1988;15(1):23–33. Motta L, Bussadori S, Campanelli A, da Silva A, Alfaya T, de Godoy C. Pain during removal of carious lesions in children: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Dent. 2013. Hosein T, Hasan A. Efficacy of chemo mechanical caries removal with Carisolv. J Coll Physicians Surg Pakistan. 2008;18(4):222–5. Hegde S, Kakti A, Bolar D, Bhaskar S. Clinical Efficiency of Three Caries Removal Systems: Rotary Excavation, Carisolv, and Papacarie. J Dent Child. 2016;83(1):22–8. Rajakumar S, Mungara J, Joseph E, Philip J, Shilpa, Priya M. Evaluation of three different caries removal techniques in children: a comparative clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013;38(1):23–6. Hegde R, Chaudhari S. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and chemo-mechanical methods of caries excavation: an in vivo study. J Int Oral Heal. 2016;8:357–61. Nagaveni N, Radhika N, Satisha T, Ashwini K, Neni S, Gupta S. Efficacy of new chemomechanical caries removal agent compared with conventional method in primary teeth: An in vivo study. Int J Oral Heal Sci. 2016;6:52–8. Pathivada L, Krishna M, Kalra M, Ivekanandan G, Singh J, Navit S. Clinical evaluation of a papain-based gel for the chemo-mechanical removal of caries in children. Oral Heal Dent Manag. 2016;15:145–9. Goyal P, Kumari R, Kannan V, Madhu S. Efficacy and tolerance of papain gel with conventional drilling method: a clinico-microbiological study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;39(2):109–12. Soni HK, Sharma A, Sood PB. A comparative clinical study of various methods of caries removal in children. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2015 Feb;16(1):19–26. Lager A, Thornqvist E, Ericson D. Cultivatable bacteria in dentine after caries excavation using rose-bur or carisolv. Caries Res. 2003;37(3):206–11. Azrak B, Callaway A, Grundheber A, Stender E, Willershausen B. Comparison of the efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal (Carisolv) with that of conventional excavation in reducing the cariogenic flora. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2004;14(3):182–91. Pandit I, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M VL. Various methods of caries removal in children: A comparative clinical study. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2007;25(2):93–6. Subramaniam P, Babu K, Neeraja G. Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal (Carisolv) with that of conventional drilling in reducing cariogenic flora. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008;32(3):215–9. Kochhar GK, Srivastava N, Pandit IK, Gugnani N GM. An evaluation of different caries removal techniques in primary teeth: a comparitive clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;36(1):5–9. Kirzioglu Z, Gurbuz T, Yilmaz Y. Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical and mechanical caries removal: status of the restorations at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Clin Oral Investig. 2007 Mar;11(1):69–76. Nadanovsky P, Cohen Carneiro F, Souza de Mello F. Removal of caries using only hand instruments: a comparison of mechanical and chemo-mechanical methods. Caries Res. 2001;35(5):384–9. Maru VP, Kumar A, Badiyani BK, Sharma AR, Sharma J, Dobariya CV. Behavioral changes in preschoolers treated with/without rotary instruments. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2014 May;4(2):77–81. Schwendicke F, Frencken J, Bjørndal L, Maltz M, Manton D, Ricketts D, et al. Managing Carious Lesions: Consensus Recommendations on Carious Tissue Removal. Adv Dent Res. 2016;28(2):58–67. NCT01641861. A Comparative study of Papacarie and the Conventional Method for dental caries treatment. | Link |
Estudios originales
