Clinical evaluation of a chemomechanical method for caries removal in children and adolescents

Expert consensus on early childhood caries management

Early childhood caries (ECC) is a significant chronic disease of childhood and a rising public health burden worldwide. ECC may cause a higher risk of new caries lesions in both primary and permanent dentition, affecting lifelong oral health. The occurrence of ECC has been closely related to the core microbiome change in the oral cavity, which may be influenced by diet habits, oral health management, fluoride use, and dental manipulations. So, it is essential to improve parental oral health and awareness of health care, to establish a dental home at the early stage of childhood, and make an individualized caries management plan. Dental interventions according to the minimally invasive concept should be carried out to treat dental caries. This expert consensus mainly discusses the etiology of ECC, caries-risk assessment of children, prevention and treatment plan of ECC, aiming to achieve lifelong oral health.

Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, cavitated carious lesions and those extending into dentine have been treated by 'complete' removal of carious tissue, i.e. non-selective removal and conventional restoration (CR). Alternative strategies for managing cavitated or dentine carious lesions remove less or none of the carious tissue and include selective carious tissue removal (or selective excavation (SE)), stepwise carious tissue removal (SW), sealing carious lesions using sealant materials, sealing using preformed metal crowns (Hall Technique, HT), and non-restorative cavity control (NRCC).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing of carious lesions using sealant materials or preformed metal crowns (HT), or NRCC) to treat carious lesions conventionally considered to require restorations (cavitated or micro-cavitated lesions, or occlusal lesions that are clinically non-cavitated but clinically/radiographically extend into dentine) in primary or permanent teeth with vital (sensitive) pulps.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases to 21 July 2020 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing different levels of carious tissue removal, as listed above, against each other, placebo, or no treatment. Participants had permanent or primary teeth (or both), and vital pulps (i.e. no irreversible pulpitis/pulp necrosis), and carious lesions conventionally considered to need a restoration (i.e. cavitated lesions, or non- or micro-cavitated lesions radiographically extending into dentine). The primary outcome was failure, a composite measure of pulp exposure, endodontic therapy, tooth extraction, and restorative complications (including resealing of sealed lesions).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently screened search results, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies and the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We measured treatment effects through analysing dichotomous outcomes (presence/absence of complications) and expressing them as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For failure in the subgroup of deep lesions, we used network meta-analysis to assess and rank the relative effectiveness of different interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies with 3350 participants and 4195 teeth/lesions, which were conducted in 11 countries and published between 1977 and 2020. Twenty-four studies used a parallel-group design and three were split-mouth. Two studies included adults only, 20 included children/adolescents only and five included both. Ten studies evaluated permanent teeth, 16 evaluated primary teeth and one evaluated both. Three studies treated non-cavitated lesions; 12 treated cavitated, deep lesions, and 12 treated cavitated but not deep lesions or lesions of varying depth.  Seventeen studies compared conventional treatment (CR) with a less invasive treatment: SE (8), SW (4), two HT (2), sealing with sealant materials (4) and NRCC (1). Other comparisons were: SE versus HT (2); SE versus SW (4); SE versus sealing  with sealant materials (2); sealant materials versus no sealing (2).  Follow-up times varied from no follow-up (pulp exposure during treatment) to 120 months, the most common being 12 to 24 months. All studies were at overall high risk of bias. Effect of interventions Sealing using sealants versus other interventions for non-cavitated or cavitated but not deep lesions There was insufficient evidence of a difference between sealing with sealants and CR (OR 5.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 49.27; 1 study, 41 teeth, permanent teeth, cavitated), sealing versus SE (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.11 to 85.52; 2 studies, 82 primary teeth, cavitated) or sealing versus no treatment (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.71; 2 studies, 103 permanent teeth, non-cavitated), but we assessed all as very low-certainty evidence. HT, CR, SE, NRCC for cavitated, but not deep lesions in primary teeth The odds of failure may be higher for CR than HT (OR 8.35, 95% CI 3.73 to 18.68; 2 studies, 249 teeth; low-certainty evidence) and lower for HT than NRCC (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.74; 1 study, 84 teeth, very low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference between SE versus HT (OR 8.94, 95% CI 0.57 to 139.67; 2 studies, 586 teeth) or CR versus NRCC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.71; 1 study, 102 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. CR, SE, SW for deep lesions The odds of failure were higher for CR than SW in permanent teeth (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.17; 3 studies, 398 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 9.12; 1 study, 63 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure may be higher for CR than SE in permanent teeth (OR 11.32, 95% CI 1.97 to 65.02; 2 studies, 179 teeth) and primary teeth (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.04 to 18.77; 4 studies, 265 teeth), both very low-certainty evidence. Notably, two studies compared CR versus SE in cavitated, but not deep lesions, with insufficient evidence of a difference in outcome (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.88; 204 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). The odds of failure were higher for SW than SE in permanent teeth (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.82; 3 studies, 371 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence), but not primary teeth (OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.49 to 8.62; 2 studies, 126 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). For deep lesions, a network meta-analysis showed the probability of failure to be greatest for CR compared with SE, SW and HT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CR, there were lower numbers of failures with HT and SE in the primary dentition, and with SE and SW in the permanent dentition. Most studies showed high risk of bias and limited precision of estimates due to small sample size and typically limited numbers of failures, resulting in assessments of low or very low certainty of evidence for most comparisons.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials on Chemomechanical Caries Removal

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the methodologies used in previously published prospective randomized clinical trials on chemomechanical caries removal and to conduct a meta-analysis to quantify the differences in the excavation time between chemomechanical and conventional caries removal methods.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, EBSCO host, and Cochrane Library databases. The following categories were excluded during the assessment process: non-English studies published before 2000, animal studies, review articles, laboratory studies, case reports, and nonrandomized or retrospective clinical trials. The methodologies of the selected clinical trials were assessed. Furthermore, the reviewed clinical trials were subjected to meta-analysis for quantifying the differences in excavation time between the chemomechanical and the conventional caries removal techniques.

RESULTS

Only 19 randomized clinical trials fit the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. None of the 19 reviewed trials completely fulfilled Delphi's ideal criteria for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials. The meta-analysis results revealed that the shortest mean excavation time was recorded for rotary caries excavation (2.99±0.001 minutes), followed by the enzyme-based chemomechanical caries removal method (6.36±0.08 minutes) and the the hand excavation method (atraumatic restorative technique; 6.98±0.17 minutes). The longest caries excavation time was recorded for the sodium hypochlorite-based chemomechanical caries removal method (8.12±0.02 minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

It was found that none of the current reviewed trials fulfilled all the ideal requirements of clinical trials. Furthermore, the current scientific evidence shows that the sodium hypochlorite-based (Carisolv) chemomechanical caries removal method was more time consuming when compared to the enzyme-based (Papacarie) chemomechanical and the conventional caries removal methods. Further prospective randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating the long-term follow-up of papain-treated permanent teeth are needed.

Caries Removal by Chemomechanical (Carisolv™) vs. Rotary Drill: A Systematic Review

Background:

Chemomechanical caries removal is an effective alternative to the traditional rotary drilling method. The advantages of chemomechanical techniques in terms of the need for anesthesia, pain perception and patient preference are systematically reviewed and a meta-analysis of the time required for caries removal is reported.

Method:

Randomized controlled studies of comparison of chemomechanical techniques with conventional rotary drill were selected from a systematic search of standard biomedical databases, including the PubMed and Cochrane clinical trials. Non-repeated search results were screened for relevance and risk of bias assessment, followed by methodology assessment. Statistical models were applied to the outcome parameters - time required, pain perception, need of anesthesia and patient preference - extracted from the studies.

Results:

Out of the 111 non-repeated search results, 26 studies receiving a low bias score were selected for the review, and 16 randomized clinical trials of rotary and Carisolv techniques were considered for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis by fixed effect as well as random effect models indicate that Carisolv takes more time (3.65 ± 0.05 and 4.09 ± 0.29 min) than rotary drill (8.65 ± 0.09 and 8.97 ± 0.66 min) method. Advantages of reduced pain (14.67 for Carisolv vs. 6.76 for rotary drill), need for anesthesia (1.59% vs. 10.52%) outweigh the longer time requirement and make it the preferred (18.68% vs. 4.69%) method.

Conclusion:

Chemomechanical techniques stand out as a minimally invasive and preferred method based on the meta-analyses. Evaluation of pain experienced using robust methods is needed to strengthen the evidence for their use.

Comparison of Carisolv system vs traditional rotating instruments for caries removal in the primary dentition: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the reliability of the Carisolv system with respect to drilling regarding the full removal of decayed hard tissues in primary dentition. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify controlled trails, randomized controlled trials and clinical trials that compared the Carisolv system to the traditional mechanical caries removal in the primary dentition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The main relevant databases were searched: MEDLINE via PUBMED, Web of Science and SCOPUS. Complete caries removal, length of working time and need of local anesthesia were the outcomes evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 195 studies were identified and complete analysis of 28 studies was performed; finally, 10 papers were included. The trials included involved a total of 348 patients for 532 treated teeth. There was no significant difference in terms of clinical efficacy between the Carisolv and the rotary instrument (z = 0.68, p = 0.50), whereas the treatment with Carisolv was significantly longer in terms of time with respect to the rotary instruments (z = 10.49, p < 0.01). The chemo mechanical technique reduces the need for local anesthesia, with a difference between two types of treatment near to statistical significance (z = 1.91 p = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review indicates that the clinical efficacy of chemo-mechanical removal with Carisolv seems as reliable as the rotary instruments. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the heterogeneity among study designs and to the shortage of available data. Further large-scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed.

A comparative clinical study of various methods of caries removal in children

AIM

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of caries removal, time taken and to evaluate the pain threshold experienced by children during various caries removal methods.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty patients aged between 4 and 14 years requiring dental restorations were selected. Caries removal was completed using an air-rotor, hand instruments, Carisolv and polymer burs. The efficacy, time taken and pain thresholds were evaluated during caries removal by Ericsson et al. scale, visual analogue scale and verbal pain scale, respectively.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data was collected and statistically analysed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Post Hoc comparison by Bonferroni method. The skewed data was analysed amongst groups by applying Kruskal-Wallis test followed by probability adjustment by Mann-Whitney test.

RESULT

These results indicated that the efficacy of caries removal was highest with air-rotor and was least by the hand instrument, whilst Carisolv® was least painful and the most time-consuming method.

CONCLUSIONS

Caries removal with polymer burs and Carisolv were found to be as effective in caries removal and could be considered as alternatives to painful procedures as air-rotor in management of caries especially in children.

Current update of chemomechanical caries removal methods

Chemomechanical caries removal is an excellent method for minimally invasive caries excavation, and the removal agents are either sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)- or enzyme-based. The NaOCl-based agents include GK-101, GK-101E (Caridex) and Carisolv, and the enzyme-based agents include Papacarie and the experimental material, Biosolv. This review outlines the changes in chemomechanical caries removal methods and focuses on recently published laboratory and clinical studies. The historical development, mechanism of action, excavation time and biological effects on pulp and dental hard tissues are described. Based on existing evidence, the currently available chemomechanical caries removal methods are viable alternatives to conventional rotary instrument methods. Chemomechanical methods could be extremely useful in very anxious, disabled and paediatric patients. It does seem some of these agents would still benefit from quicker excavation times in order to achieve more universal acceptance. However, as a means of conserving the caries-affected dentine, chemomechanical caries removal is possibly much more successful than conventional rotary instrumentation.

How to make choice of the carious removal methods, Carisolv or traditional drilling? A meta-analysis

Despite Carisolv has been used to remove carious dentine for 14 years, it still has not reached consensus regarding its effectiveness and efficacy. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of the chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) system - Carisolv. A systematic electronic literature search was conducted to identify RCTs comparing the use of Carisolv with a control (rotary instruments) in patients with dental caries. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences with accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The outcome measurement included the complete caries removal rate (CCR: the number of cases with complete caries removal in study and control groups after different treatment), the treatment time (min) and the use of local anaesthesia. The meta-analysis was performed with the fixed-effect or random-effect model according to the heterogeneity. Six studies involving 578 teeth met our inclusion criteria. There was no statistically significant difference in CCR between Carisolv group and rotary instruments group; in Carisolv group, the treatment time (min) was significantly longer no matter whether the caries was located in coronal or root area, while the use of local anaesthesia was less. Compared with rotary instruments, Carisolv did not show increased CCR. Carisolv reduced the use of local anaesthesia although it took longer treatment time. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the heterogeneity among study designs. Further large-scale, well-designed RCTs are needed.