Evaluation of Dentin Features in Teeth After Caries Removal by Three Techniques (chemomechanical, Mechanical with a Smart Bur, and Air-abrasion): an Study

Overview

Journal PeerJ

Specialties Biology
Environmental Health
General Medicine

Date 2024 Jul 19

PMID 39026539

Authors

Maha Abdul-Kareem Mahmood

Haraa Khairi Al-Hadithi

Hashim Mueen Hussein

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Different methods for removing dental carious lesions exist, including conventional rotary caries removal and new advanced technology like polymer-based burs, chemomechanical agents, air abrasion, and laser.

Objectives: This study shows the differences in features of dentin (smear layer, patency of dentinal tubules, surface irregularities, intertubular micro porosities, and exposed dentinal tubules) among different types of caries removal techniques.

Materials And Methods: An study was done on 60 primary molars with occlusal class I active caries. Teeth were divided into three groups according to a method of caries removal (G1: chemomechanical, G2: mechanical with a smart bur, and G3: air-abrasion). After complete caries excavation, the teeth were examined under a scanning electronic microscope (SEM) with the power of magnification 4,000x and 8,000x to show the morphological dentinal features with SEM microphotographs. Data obtained was analyzed using the SPSS program where Fisher exact, Kruskal-Wallis and multiple Wilcoxon sum rank tests were used. The level of significance is when the -value is less than 0.05.

Results: Generally, SEM showed the highest ratio of score 1 of smear layer presence, surface irregularities, and microporosity in all groups in both magnifications. The patency of tubules showed the highest ratio of score 1 in G1, scores 2 in both G2 and G3 in magnification 4,000x, while 8,000x there was the highest ratio of its score 1 in G1 and G2 while the G3 has score 2 as the highest score. The exposed dentinal tubules showed the highest ratio in G1 in score 3, in G2 in score 2, and in G3 in score 1 in magnification 4,000x, while 8,000x there was the highest ratio of its score 2 in both G1 and G3 while the G3 has highest score 1. The study with magnification 4,000x showed a significant difference (S) among three groups in exposed dentinal tubules with a -value (0.012), and there was S between chemomechanical and smart, chemomechanical and air-abrasions groups with a -value (0.041, 0.001 subsequentially). Other dentin features showed non-significant differences (NS) among or between groups in both magnifications (4,000x, 8,000x).

Conclusions: All groups were effective in removing caries and can successfully treat young, scared or stressed patients. All methods of caries removal produce clinically parametric changes in the residual dentin.

References

Somani R, Jaidka S, Jawa D, Mishra S . Comparative evaluation of smear layer removal by various chemomechanical caries removal agents: an in vitro SEM study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2015; 33(3):204-7. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.160358. View

Tan M, Hill R, Anderson P . Comparing the Air Abrasion Cutting Efficacy of Dentine Using a Fluoride-Containing Bioactive Glass versus an Alumina Abrasive: An In Vitro Study. Int J Dent. 2015; 2015:521901. PMC: 4677207. DOI: 10.1155/2015/521901. View

Al Shehadat S, Gorduysus M, Abdul Hamid S, Abdullah N, Samsudin A, Ahmad A . Optimization of scanning electron microscope technique for amniotic membrane investigation: A preliminary study. Eur J Dent. 2018; 12(4):574-578. PMC: 6178683. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_401_17. View

Nomura Y, Otsuka R, Wint W, Okada A, Hasegawa R, Hanada N . Tooth-Level Analysis of Dental Caries in Primary Dentition in Myanmar Children. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(20). PMC: 7589262. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17207613. View

Dhanvijay A, Kubde R, Shenoi P, Badole G, Shahu S . Assessment of Smear Layer Formation After Caries Removal Using Erbium Laser and Papain-Based Chemo-Mechanical Caries Removal Agent: An In Vitro Scanning Electron Microscopy Study. Cureus. 2023; 15(10):e47999. PMC: 10686783. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47999. View

Marques M, Hilgert L, Silva L, Demarchi K, Matias P, Ribeiro A . Subjective versus objective, polymer bur-based selective carious tissue removal: 1-year interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):9130. PMC: 7272648. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-66074-x. View

Perdigao J . Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) Dentin adhesion - not there yet. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2021; 56(1):190-207. PMC: 8216299. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2020.08.004. View

Schwendicke F, Leal S, Schlattmann P, Paris S, Ribeiro A, Marques M . Selective carious tissue removal using subjective criteria or polymer bur: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (SelecCT). BMJ Open. 2018; 8(12):e022952. PMC: 6303626. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022952. View

Saikaew P, Sattabanasuk V, Harnirattisai C, Chowdhury A, Carvalho R, Sano H . Role of the smear layer in adhesive dentistry and the clinical applications to improve bonding performance. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2022; 58:59-66. PMC: 8814382. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2021.12.001. View

10.

Isolan C, Sarkis-Onofre R, Lima G, Moraes R . Bonding to Sound and Caries-Affected Dentin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2018; 20(1):7-18. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a39775. View

11.

Bjorndal L, Simon S, Tomson P, Duncan H . Management of deep caries and the exposed pulp. Int Endod J. 2019; 52(7):949-973. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13128. View

12.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

13.

Neves A, Coutinho E, Vivan Cardoso M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B . Current concepts and techniques for caries excavation and adhesion to residual dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2011; 13(1):7-22. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a18443. View

14.

Koodaryan R, Hafezeqoran A, Poursoltan S . Effect of dentin surface roughness on the shear bond strength of resin bonded restorations. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8(3):224-8. PMC: 4919494. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.3.224. View

15.

Hegde S, Kakti A, Bolar D, Bhaskar S . Clinical Efficiency of Three Caries Removal Systems: Rotary Excavation, Carisolv, and Papacarie. J Dent Child (Chic). 2016; 83(1):22-8. View

16.

Thakur R, Patil S, Kush A, Madhu K . SEM Analysis of Residual Dentin Surface in Primary Teeth Using Different Chemomechanical Caries Removal Agents. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2017; 41(4):289-293. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.4.289. View

17.

Duruk G, Kizilci E, Malkoc M . Effectiveness of Different Methods in Removing Dentin Caries of Primary Teeth: Micro-CT and SEM Evaluation. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2022; 46(3):211-218. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4625-46.3.7. View

18.

Sharma N, Sisodia S, Jain A, Bhargava T, Kumar P, Rana K . Evaluation of the Efficacy of Recent Caries Removal Techniques: An In Vitro Study. Cureus. 2023; 15(1):e34432. PMC: 9979096. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.34432. View

19.

Banerjee A, Kidd E, Watson T . In vitro evaluation of five alternative methods of carious dentine excavation. Caries Res. 2000; 34(2):144-50. DOI: 10.1159/000016582. View

20.

Hamama H, Yiu C, Burrow M . Current update of chemomechanical caries removal methods. Aust Dent J. 2014; 59(4):446-56. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12214. View