Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2001 May-Jun;35(3):205-10.
doi: 10.1159/000047457.

Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal in primary molars and its acceptance by patients

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal in primary molars and its acceptance by patients

G M Maragakis et al. Caries Res. 2001 May-Jun.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficiency and patient acceptance of the chemomechanical caries removal agent Carisolvtrade mark in deciduous teeth. Contralateral primary molars of sixteen 7- to 9-year-old patients (32 teeth) were treated with the air-motor and with Carisolv, respectively. Patients replied to a pre- and a postoperative questionnaire. Complete caries removal (CCR) was accomplished in all air-motor sessions. It was not achieved within the time limit of 15 min in 6 (37.5%) Carisolv sessions. Air-motor CCR time ranged between 6 and 18 s (mean: 11.81 s ). Carisolv CCR time, where accomplished within 15 min, ranged between 6 min 46 s and 13 min 57 s (mean: 6 min 51 s). Preoperatively, the majority of the children reported disliking the drilling, and that they would visit the dentist more often and prefer sitting in the chair longer if they could avoid it. Postoperatively, the majority of the children reported disliking the taste of Carisolv, estimated Carisolv to have taken longer, would not recommend it to their friends, and preferred the air-motor. In conclusion, Carisolv, although a step forward in terms of solution volume required, is not in a position to replace rotary instruments for caries removal: it did not remove decay completely in one third of our sample; it was much slower than the air-motor; it had a chlorine taste/odor our patients disliked.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources