title: A comparative microbiological study to assess caries excavation by conventional rotary method and a chemo-mechanical method.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study was aimed to determine the effectiveness of Papacárie(®) for caries removal as compared to the conventional method with respect to microbial flora, time, the amount of tissue removal, child's behavior, pain perception, and preference of treatment.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sixty primary molars of 30 children of age 4-9 years were selected randomly and divided into two groups of 30 teeth each: Group A treated by conventional method and group B with Papacárie(®) method.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Comparatively, no statistical difference was seen in microbial growth, total bacterial count, and lactobacilli count in both the groups (P = 0.36). The mean cavity entrance size with group A was 0.98133 mm and group B was 0.26083 mm (P < 0.001). The mean preparation time for group A was 4.7 Mins (minutes) and group B was 17.96 min s (P < 0.001). Majority of kids of both group A and B scored 3 (Frankl Behavior Rating Scale) before and after the treatment showing no statistical difference in their behavioral score (P = 1). In group A 50% of children experienced no pain as compared to 86.7% in group B (P = 0.01). There was no statistical difference in the preference of treatment (P = 0.12).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Thus, the Chemo mechanical caries removal method can be considered as an effective method to control pain and preserve sound tooth structure during caries excavation.
authors: Department of Paediatric Dentistry, SDM College of Dental Sciences, Sattur, Dharwad, India.
authors: Rajesh T
authors: RT
authors: Anegundi
authors: Shruthi B
authors: SB
authors: Patil
authors: Viresh
authors: V
authors: Tegginmani
authors: Sheetal D
authors: SD
authors: Shetty
keywords: Behavior assessment; Papacárie®; cariogenic flora; chemo-mechanical caries removal; mechanical method of caries removal
references: Caries Res. 2003 Sep-Oct;37(5):360-4
references: 12925827
references: Caries Res. 1993;27(5):402-8
references: 8242678
references: Oral Health Prev Dent. 2005;3(2):105-11
references: 16173387
references: J Am Dent Assoc. 1984 Aug;109(2):247-51
references: 6590605
references: J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008 Spring;32(3):177-80
references: 18524264
references: Int J Paediatr Dent. 2004 May;14(3):182-91
references: 15139953
references: J Oral Rehabil. 1988 Jan;15(1):23-33
references: 3162257
references: J Dent Child (Chic). 2007 May-Aug;74(2):93-7
references: 18477426
references: Br Dent J. 1996 Apr 20;180(8):287-91
references: 8639369
references: Caries Res. 1997;31(6):411-7
references: 9353579
references: Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006 May;16(3):161-7
references: 16643536
references: Br Dent J. 1993 Apr 10;174(7):245-8
references: 8461203
references: Dtsch Zahnarztl Z. 1991 Sep;46(9):581-4
references: 1817935
references: J Dent Res. 1987 Nov;66(11):1680-3
references: 10872406
references: N Z Dent J. 1976 Apr;72(328):80-3
references: 1065806
references: J Dent. 1998 Nov;26(8):649-56
references: 9793286
references: J Am Dent Assoc. 1976 Dec;93(6):1149-53
references: 794090
references: Int J Paediatr Dent. 1995 Jun;5(2):87-95
references: 7547819
references: Br Dent J. 1985 Sep 7;159(5):157-60
references: 3862423
references: Caries Res. 2001 May-Jun;35(3):205-10
references: 11385201
references: Br Dent J. 2000 May 13;188(9):476-82
references: 10859846
references: J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 Jan;138(1):47-55
references: 17197401
references: J Oral Rehabil. 2003 Aug;30(8):773-9
references: 12880398
references: J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008 Spring;32(3):215-9
references: 18524272
references: J Am Dent Assoc. 1950 Dec;41(6):701-10
references: 14778706
references: J Public Health Dent. 1996;56(3 Spec No):135-40; discussion 161-3
references: 8915958
references: J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2005 Winter;30(2):115-9
references: 16491964