Costs and benefits of Papacarie in pediatric dentistry: a randomized clinical trial.

Papacarie gel is an agent that eliminates the need for local anesthesia and reduces the need for using a drill. However, there is no information regarding the cost per procedure. Therefore we analyzed the cost, per procedure, of Papacarie gel compared to the traditional method (drilling), and performed a comparison between these methods of carious tissue removal. A randomized clinical trial was performed with 24 children with an average age of 5.9 years old. Of these children, 12 were boys and 12 were girls, which resulted in a total of 46 restorations. Patients were separated into: Papacarie group (caries removal with the chemical-mechanical method - Papacarie gel) and Drill group (caries removal with the traditional method - drilling). Values of the materials used in the procedures, heart rate (before, 5 minutes during, and after dental treatment), and the total consultation duration were recorded. A level of significance of 5% was adopted. Papacarie had a lower cost per procedure ($ 0.91) when compared to the traditional method ($ 1.58). Papacarie provided a cost reduction of 42% compared to the traditional method. Using local anesthesia ($ 2.17), the cost reduction increased to 58%. In the procedure using drill + Papacarie ($ 1.37), the cost reduction was 33%. Heart rate, consultation duration, and number of restorations were not statistically different. Papacarie shows an excellent cost benefit for minimally invasive removal of carious tissue and is a feasible alternative for public health care.

Assessment of chemomechanical removal of carious lesions using Papacarie Duo™: randomized longitudinal clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemomechanical removal of carious lesions consists of the dissolution of carious tissue by the application of a natural or synthetic agent, followed by atraumatic mechanical removal. AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of Papacarie Duo ® gel in the chemomechanical removal of carious lesions in primary teeth in comparison to the traditional method (low-speed bur). SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial was conducted with 20 children between 5 and 8 years of age. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two teeth were treated in each child (split-mouth design), with the randomization of two methods: Group 1 - chemomechanical caries removal with Papacarie Duo™; and Group 2 - removal of carious dentin tissue using a low-speed bur. Both methods involved restoration with glass ionomer cement and follow up. The following aspects were evaluated: time required for the procedure; pain (face evaluation scale); retention of the restorative material in the cavity; and the presence of secondary caries after 30 days. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Chi-squared test, Student's t-test, and Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between methods were found regarding time required for the procedure (P = 0.13), the occurrence of pain (P = 0.585), or restoration status at the 30-day clinical evaluation (P = 0.713). CONCLUSION: The findings of the present study demonstrate that the two methods achieve similar results. The advantages of minimally invasive treatment, such as chemomechanical caries removal with Papacarie Duo™, are its ease of use, patient comfort, and the fact that it causes less damage to dental tissue.

Relative delivery efficiency and convenience of spray and ointment formulations of papain/urea/chlorophyllin enzymatic wound therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative delivery efficiency and user preference for spray and ointment formulations containing papain, urea, and chlorophyllin copper complex sodium (papain/urea/chlorophyllin copper complex). METHODS: Participants applied both a spray and 3 ointment formulations of papain/urea/chlorophyllin copper complex to identical wound models. The average amount of product used per application was determined by weighing the bottle or tube before the study and after completion of the study. Participants were also asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding their preferences for the two formulations. RESULTS: The amount of product used per wound application was 30% less with the spray formulation; resulting in 29% more wound applications per container. Over 80% of the study participants found the spray easier and quicker to use than the ointments. CONCLUSIONS: The spray formulation of papain/urea/chlorophyllin copper complex resulted in less product use per wound application than did 3 different ointment formulations. Participants expressed a favorable impression of practical benefits of the spray formulation including a reduced risk of wound contamination.