Analyzing working time and efficient caries removal using a novel bioactive caries detecting dye and air polisher prophy for caries excavation: randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to analyze the working time consumed during caries excavation and pain perception while using a novel Bioactive caries-detecting dye solution (BCD), an Air Polisher Prophy and a combination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four groups (in each group, n = 20 permanent teeth) were selected from 60 people between 17 and 40 years of age. The study included teeth with occlusal dentinal caries in the molars with cavity entrance sizes of less than 2 mm (clinically and radiographically). Randomization software was used to assign patients to various groups. Group A: Conventional Rotary Drilling, Group B: BCD + Mechanical Excavation (Spoon Excavator), Group C: Air Polisher Prophy, and Group D: BCD + Air Polisher Prophy 0.5 mL BCD was applied with a micro brush to the carious tooth surface for 40 s in groups B and D. After that, radiographs were performed to see if the radiopaque extension was visible. For mechanical caries extraction, a spoon excavator was used for group B, and an air polisher prophy was employed for group D. For mechanical caries extraction, a spoon excavator was utilized for group B. An air polisher prophy was employed for group D. Multiple applications of the BCD were used in the event of residual caries. Working time and pain experienced during caries excavation were registered using the Verbal Pain Scale (VPS) (score 0-4), and caries removal was clinically graded using the modified Scale (score 0-5). RESULTS: The time taken was Group A, Group D, Group B, and Group C, according to statistical analysis using ANOVA and the Post Hoc Test (275.02, 403.8, 461.98, 615.41 s, respectively). Group A had the highest mean VPS (1.85), whereas Group B had the most minor pain (0.6), followed by Group D (1.2) and Group C (0.6). (1.45). Group C (2.35), followed by groups D (1.75), B (1.30), and A (1.30), had ineffective caries eradication (0.90). (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: compared to group C, groups B and D took less time and had less/no pain while excavating caries. Compared to traditional mechanized caries removal methods, the chemo-chemical BCD can diagnose and aid in successful caries removal with minimal pain. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The outcomes of the present study demonstrated that the chemo-chemical bioactive caries detecting dye solution has the potential to identify and help in effective caries removal before mechanized caries removal methods.

Volumetric analysis after caries excavation with caries detecting dyes and chemomechanical caries removal agents using 3D scanner-a randomised clinical trial.

AIM: This research aimed to use an extra-oral 3D scanner for conducting volumetric analysis after caries excavation using caries-detecting dyes and chemomechanical caries removal agents in individuals with occlusal and proximal carious lesions. METHODS: Patients with occlusal (A1, A2, A3) and proximal carious lesions (B1, B2, B3) were treated with the conventional rotary technique, caries detecting dyes (CDD) and chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) method on 90 teeth (n = 45 for each). Group A1, B1: Excavation was performed using diamond points. Group A2, B2: CDD (Sable Seek™ caries indicator, Ultradent) was applied and left for 10 s, and then the cavity was rinsed and dried. For caries removal, diamond points or excavators were used. Group A3 and B3: BRIX3000 papain gel was applied with a micro-brush for 20 s and was activated for 2 min, and then the carious tissue was removed with a sharp spoon excavator. Post-excavation cavity volume analysis was performed using a 3D scanner. The time required and the verbal pain score (VPS) for pain were scored during excavation. Post-restoration evaluation was performed at 1, 3, and 6 months FDI (Federation Dentaire Internationale) criteria. RESULTS: Comparison of age, time and volume with study groups were made using Independent Sample' t' test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for two and more than two groups, respectively. Using Cohen's Kappa Statistics, evaluators 1 and 2 agreed on caries removal status aesthetic, functional and biological properties at different follow-ups. The chi-square test revealed that the rotary groups [A1(2.5 ± 0.4 min) B1(4.0 ± 0.4 min)] had significantly less (p = 0.000) mean procedural time than CDD [A2(4.5 ± 0.4 min) B2(5.7 ± 0.4 min)] and CMCR [A3(5.4 ± 0.7 min) B3(6.2 ± 0.6 min)] groups. The CMCR group showed better patient acceptance and less pain during caries excavation than the rotary and CDD groups. CMCR group showed significantly less mean caries excavated volume(p = 0.000). Evaluation of restoration after 1-, 3-, and 6-month intervals was acceptable for all the groups. CONCLUSION: Brix3000 helps effectively remove denatured teeth with less pain or sensitivity. The time required for caries removal was lowest in the rotary method and highest in the brix3000 group, while the volume of caries removed was the lowest for brix3000 and highest for the rotary group.

Effect of mouthwashes on the microhardness of aesthetic composite restorative materials.

BACKGROUND: Mouthwashes are increasingly being used worldwide. However, these preparations are known to have a negative impact on composite resin dental restorations. In this study, we aim to evaluate the effect of mouthwashes on the microhardness of such restorations. METHODS: Thirty specimens of Tetric N-Ceram composite were prepared. Each composite specimen was cured for 40 seconds and kept in saline solution for 24 hours at 37 °C. Baseline microhardness of each specimen was recorded using an Innovatest Vickers Micro Hardness Tester. Composite specimens were randomly placed in 20 mL of the selected mouthwashes (Colgate® Plax, Listerine® Teeth & Gum Defence, and Closeup® Antibacterial Mouthwash Cool Breeze) and stored in an incubator for 24 hours at 37 °C. Next, microhardness values were rechecked. pH measurements were recorded for each type of mouthwash using a digital pH meter. RESULTS: Due to the acidic nature of Colgate® and Listerine®, the microhardness of the restorations decreased with these mouthwashes; Listerine® caused the greatest decrease in microhardness and had the lowest pH reading (4.34). For Closeup®, with a neutral pH (7.02), no negative effect on microhardness was found; on the contrary, due to the presence of zinc in this latter mouthwash, an increase of the microhardness was found. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the negative effect of acidic mouthwashes on the microhardness of composite dental restorations.