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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Falk Schwendicke; Tanya Walsh; Thomas Lamont; Waraf Al-Yaseen; Lars Bjørndal; Janet E Clarkson; Margherita Fontana; Jesus Gomez Rossi; Gerd Göstemeyer; Colin Levey; Anne Müller; David Ricketts; Mark Robertson; Ruth M Santamaria; Nicola Pt Innes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-07-19