| Literature DB >> 33368068 |
Nurin Izyani Othman1, Hanan Umaira Ismail1, Norazlina Mohammad2, Norzalina Ghazali3, Muhammad Syafiq Alauddin2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the current knowledge and attitude of deep caries removal method among dental students in Malaysia.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33368068 PMCID: PMC8195624 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721546
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Dent
Sociodemographic, deep caries investigations, and management based on minimally invasive technique
| Variables | Percentage (%) | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 23.8 | 72 |
| Female | 76.2 | 231 |
| Years of study | ||
| 4th year | 53.1 | 161 |
| 5th year | 46.9 | 142 |
| University | ||
| Public University | 81.2 | 246 |
| Private University | 18.8 | 57 |
| Caries removal techniques learned in dental school | ||
| Complete caries excavation | 82.7 | 249 |
| Partial caries removal | 60.5 | 158 |
| Stepwise technique | 49.0 | 112 |
| Atraumatic restoration technique | 29.3 | 78 |
| Pulpotomy | 53.2 | 146 |
| Hall technique | 26.7 | 73 |
| Nonrestorative cavity control (NRCC) | 7.6 | 22 |
| Have you read about the minimal invasive dentistry (MID) approach in cariology field? | ||
| Yes | 68.3 | 207 |
| No | 31.7 | 96 |
| Routinely ask about pain history | ||
| Yes | 96.0 | 291 |
| No | 4.0 | 12 |
| Routinely perform pulp test | ||
| Yes | 86.8 | 263 |
| No | 13.2 | 40 |
| Pulp testing method regularly used: | ||
| Cold testing | 82.1 | 249 |
| Hot testing | 35.3 | 105 |
| Electric pulp testing | 89.8 | 244 |
| Routinely take radiograph | ||
| Yes | 89.4 | 271 |
| No | 10.6 | 32 |
| Type of radiograph taken | ||
| Periapical | 84.8 | 257 |
| Bitewing | 22.7 | 69 |
| Criteria that will stop from further removal based on dentin hardness | ||
| Dentin hardness has no influence on my excavation | 7.9 | 24 |
| When the floor is leather like | 8.6 | 26 |
| When the floor of cavity feels hard | 59.1 | 179 |
| When the floor of cavity feels hard and there is a screeching | 20.8 | 63 |
| When the floor of cavity is soft | 3.6 | 11 |
| Criteria that will stop from further removal based on color of dentin | ||
| Color of dentin has no influence on my excavation | 7.6 | 23 |
| When the floor of the cavity has a dark stain | 3.3 | 10 |
| When the floor of the cavity has a dark stain (affected dentine) | 65.3 | 198 |
| When the floor of the cavity has a dark stain (infected dentine) | 5.3 | 16 |
| When the floor of the cavity is normal dentin color to yellowish | 18.5 | 56 |
| Criteria that will stop from further removal based on dentin moisture | ||
| Moisture has no influence on my excavation | 42.6 | 129 |
| When the floor cavity is dry | 44.2 | 134 |
| When the floor cavity is little moist | 10.9 | 33 |
| When the floor cavity is very moist | 2.3 | 7 |
Management of deep caries lesion based on the cases analysis
| Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abbreviation: ICDAS, International Caries Detection and Assessment System. | ||||||
| A 36 years old, male, Malay Complaint: Food stuck on the lower right posterior tooth associated with no pain Pulp test: Normal response Diagnosis: ICDAS code 5 with risk of pulp exposure | A 14 years old, Malay, boy Complaint: Cavitated lesion on lower right posterior tooth (47) associated with no pain Pulp test: Normal respond Diagnosis: ICDAS code 5 with risk of pulp exposure | An 8 years old, Malay, girl Complaint: Uncomfortable during eating on lower right posterior tooth (84) Pulp test: Normal response Diagnosis: ICDAS code 5 with risk of pulp exposure | ||||
| Based on the case, what would be your treatment option? | Percentage (%) | Frequency | Percentage (%) | Frequency | Percentage (%) | Frequency |
| Total caries removal ≥ pulp exposure ≥ pulp extirpation ≥ permanent restoration | 0.9 | 3 | 3.6 | 11 | 3.6 | 11 |
| Total caries removal ≥ pulp exposure ≥ pulp extirpation ≥ temporary restoration | 8.5 | 26 | 4.9 | 15 | 1.6 | 5 |
| Total caries removal ≥ pulp exposure ≥ direct pulp capping ≥ permanent restoration | 31.6 | 96 | 25.4 | 77 | 7.5 | 23 |
| Total caries removal ≥ pulp exposure≥ direct pulp capping ≥ temporary restoration | 0 | 0 | 10.5 | 32 | 6.9 | 21 |
| Total caries removal ≥ pulp exposure ≥ pulpotomy ≥ permanent restoration | 1.6 | 5 | 5.9 | 18 | 30.6 | 93 |
| Total caries removal ≥ pulp exposure ≥ pulpotomy ≥ temporary restoration | 3.9 | 12 | 4.9 | 15 | 14.8 | 45 |
| Stepwise excavation ≥ indirect pulp capping ≥ temporary restoration ≥ finish the caries removal a few weeks or months later | 33 | 100 | 26.7 | 81 | 8.5 | 26 |
| Partial caries removal ≥ indirect pulp capping ≥ permanent restoration | 19.8 | 60 | 17.4 | 53 | 10.5 | 32 |
| Seal with a crown using Hall technique without removing caries | 0 | 0 | 0.3 | 1 | 10.8 | 33 |
| Nonrestorative cavity control ≥ apply fluoride | 0.3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.9 | 3 |
| Extraction or review with extraction if pain or infection | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.6 | 11 |
| Material preferred in deep caries management | Percentage (%) | Frequency | ||||
| Amalgam | 6.6 | 20 | ||||
| Cavit | 1.7 | 5 | ||||
| Compomer | 1.0 | 2 | ||||
| Composite | 41.7 | 127 | ||||
| Glass Ionomer cement | 23.3 | 71 | ||||
| Giomer | 0.4 | 1 | ||||
| Intermediate restorative material | 7.6 | 23 | ||||
| Resin modified glass ionomer cement | 4.7 | 14 | ||||
| Zinc-oxide eugenol | 13.1 | 40 | ||||
Independent t-test for treatment based on clinical case. The significance level is set at p < 0.05
| Year 4 | Year 5 |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Standard deviation (±) | Mean | Standard deviation (±) | ||
| Case 1 | 4.24 | 2.534 | 4.27 | 2.429 | 0.929 |
| Case 2 | 5.12 | 3.170 | 4.81 | 2.975 | 0.376 |
| Case 3 | 5.63 | 2.761 | 5.37 | 2.393 | 0.396 |
Independent t-test for criteria of dentine upon caries removal
| Year 4 | Year 5 |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Standard deviation (±) | Mean | Standard deviation (±) | ||
|
Note: The significance level is set at
| |||||
| Dentin hardness | 2.70 | 0.928 | 2.89 | 0.731 | 0.048 |
| Dentin color | 3.34 | 1.134 | 3.52 | 1.023 | 0.138 |
| Dentin moisture | 1.78 | 0.772 | 1.67 | 0.712 | 0.186 |
Factors affecting the material of choice, treatment options, and justification
| Variables | Percentage (%) | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Management of deep caries lesion are affected | ||
| Both decision | 91.1 | 276 |
| Self-decision | 0.7 | 2 |
| Supervisor decision | 8.3 | 25 |
|
| ||
| Biodentine (Septodont, France) | 2.3 | 7 |
| Calcium hydroxide Ca(OH) 2 | 61.4 | 186 |
| Flowable resin composite | 0.3 | 1 |
| Glass ionomer cement (GIC) | 26.7 | 81 |
| Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) | 5.9 | 18 |
| Resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) | 1.3 | 4 |
| TeraCal (resin modified calcium silicate) (BISCO, United States) | 0.3 | 1 |
| Zinc oxide eugenol (ZnOE) | 1.7 | 5 |
|
| ||
| Biodentine (Septodont, France) | 5.6 | 17 |
| Ca(OH) 2 | 44.2 | 134 |
| Ferric sulfate | 30.7 | 93 |
| Formocresol | 5.6 | 17 |
| MTA | 13.5 | 41 |
| ZnOE | 0.3 | 1 |
|
| ||
| Ease of use, familiarity with the technique | 70.6 | 214 |
| Good clinical result | 74.9 | 156 |
| Recommended by supervisor/colleagues | 61.7 | 147 |
| Recommended by clinical research | 44.8 | 98 |
| Recommended in textbook | 35.9 | 80 |
| Cost-effectiveness | 38.3 | 96 |
|
| ||
| Patient's general health | 51.5 | 158 |
| Patient's age | 76.0 | 278 |
| Patient's oral health | 71.1 | 217 |
| Patient's attitude and preference | 70.5 | 216 |
| Type of tooth (anterior, premolar, molar) | 74.6 | 228 |
| Stage of root development (incomplete/complete) | 76.4 | 234 |
| Further restoration needs of tooth | 60.9 | 184 |
| Duration of the total treatment | 42.5 | 131 |