ABSTRACT
Objective Mini-invasive Carisolv is an aid to treat dental caries for patients with dental phobia. The article was to investigate the level of pain in caries removal using mini-invasive Carisolv III gel and mechanical methods with four psychological indicators. Methods We collected 120 primary molar tooth caries of 60 children treated in our hospital. Two primary molar tooth caries of each child were respectively treated with Carisolv III gel (Group A) and mechanical method (Group B) for caries removal. Psychological indicators including the visual analog scale (VAS), the Frank1 behavior rating scale (Frank1), the Kuttner law (Kuttner), and the Houpt behavior rating scale (Houpt) were used to assess the level of pain, degree of cooperation, pain tolerance and comfort. The clinical efficiency after six months and treatment time were compared between the two groups. Results There was no statistically significant difference before treatment between the two groups using the four psychological indicators (P>0.05) , while significant differences were found during and after the treatment between the two groups (P0.05). In the mechanical group, there were statistically significant differences before and during treatment or before and after treatment using the four psychological indicators (P<0.05). The treatment time in Carisolv III gel group was longer than in mechanical group (P=0.001). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in filling examination after six months (P=0.082). Conclusion Carisolv III gel for caries removal can effectively avoid pain, improve comfort and decrease fear in children, which can be promoted in clinical application.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the difference between J-hook and micro-implant anchorage in the treatment of patient with bimaxillary protrusion.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Thirty patients with bimaxillary protrusion were divided into two groups (J-hook and micro-implant groups) and treated with MBT appliance. Four first premolars were extracted in all patients. Cephalometric analyses were carried out before and after treatment.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>In J-hook group and micro-implant group,computerized cephalometric analysis revealed that before treatment U6C-PP was (12.4 +/- 0.2) mm and (12.5 +/- 0.1) mm, respectively,and after treatment U6C-PP was (12.6 +/- 0.1) mm and (12.8 +/- 0.1) mm,respectively. The difference between J-hook group and microimplant group was significant (P < 0.01). The other differences of cephalometric analyses between J-hook group and micro-implant group was not significant.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Both J-hook and micro-implant could provide adequate anchorage in the treatment of patients with bimaxillary protrusion.</p>