Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical evaluation of the Carisolv chemomechanical caries removal technique according to the site/stage concept, a revised caries classification system

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to assess the efficiency and benefit of a chemomechanical system for carious dentin removal, Carisolv, in general practice. A revised caries classification, the site/stage concept, was used to describe the clinical situations of all carious lesions treated. The study was performed by 12 investigators, and 120 carious lesions were treated with Carisolv. Sixty percent of the cases were treated without anaesthesia, and we found a significant correlation between chemomechanical treatment without anaesthesia and absence of pain (P=0.01). In 78.3% of the cases, carious dentin was totally removed with Carisolv, and in 21.7%, the dentin treatment was completed by drilling. In cases performed with Carisolv alone, the time required to remove carious dentin was 11.1±9.51 min (mean±SD). Treatment time was equivalent for all sites and increased significantly with each successive stage of lesion progression (P<0.001). In 82.5% of cases, the clinicians were satisfied with Carisolv, and in 99.2%, so were the patients. We conclude that, using clinical examination methods, Carisolv seems to remove carious dentin at all sites and stages of carious lesions but must be made more efficient for use in general practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anusavice KJ, Kincheloe JE (1987) Comparison of pain associated with mechanical and chemomechanical removal of caries. J Dent Res 66:1680–1683

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Banerjee A, Kidd EAM, Watson TF (2000) In vitro evaluation of five alternative methods of carious dentin excavation. Caries Res 34:144–150

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Banerjee A, Watson TF, Kidd EAM (2000) Dentin caries excavation: a review of current clinical techniques. Br Dent J 188:476–482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barwart O, Moschen I, Graber A, Pfaller K (1991) In-vitro study to compare the efficacy of N-monochloro-D,L-2-aminobutyrate (NMAB, GK-101E) and water in caries removal. J Oral Rehabil 18:523–529

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Beeley JA, Yip HK, Stevenson AG (2000) Chemochemical caries removal: a review of the techniques and latest developments. Br Dent J 188:427–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cederlund A, Lindskog S, Blomlöf J (1999) Effect of a chemo-mechanical caries removal system (Carisolv) on dentin topography of non-carious dentin. Acta Odontol Scand 57:185–189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dahlin S (2001) Chemical mode of action of Carisolv. In: Albrektsson T, Bratthall D, Glantz P-O, Lindhe J (eds) Tissue preservation in caries treatment. Quintessence, London, pp 167–175

  8. Ericson D, Bornstein R (2001) Development of a tissue-preserving agent for caries removal. In: Albrektsson T, Bratthall D, Glantz P-O, Lindhe J (eds) Tissue preservation in caries treatment. Quintessence, London, pp 153–166

  9. Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, Götrick B, Bornstein R, Thorell J (1999) Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemo-mechanical removal of caries: a multi-centre study. Caries Res 33:171–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fure S, Lingström P, Birkhed D (2000) Evaluation of Carisolv for the chemo-mechanical removal of primary root caries in vivo. Caries Res 34:275–280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fure S, Lingström P, Sellen A (2002) Chemomechanical caries removal with a new modified of Carisolv gel. Abstract. IADR/ PEF meeting, Cardiff

  12. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Noack MJ (2000) Does chemomechanical caries removal affect dentin adhesion? Eur J Oral Sci 108:449–455

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hannig M (1999) Effect of Carisolv solution on sound, demineralized and denatured dentin—an ultrastructural investigation. Clin Oral Invest 3:155–159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Heyeraas KJ, Sveen OB, Mjor IA (2001) Pulp-dentin biology in restorative dentistry. Part 3: pulpal inflammation and its sequelae. Quintessence Int 32:611–625

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hosoya Y, Kawashita Y, Marshall GW Jr, Goto G (2001) Influence of Carisolv for resin adhesion to sound human primary dentin and young permanent dentin. J Dent 29:163–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kneist S, Heinrich-Weltzien R (2001) Antibacterial action of Carisolv. In: Albrektsson T, Bratthall D, Glantz P-O, Lindhe J (eds) Tissue preservation in caries treatment. Quintessence, London, pp 205–219

  17. Lasfargues JJ, Kaleka R, Louis JJ (2000) Le concept SISTA. Un nouveau guide thérapeutique en cariologie. Real Clin 11:103–122

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lasfargues JJ, Kaleka R, Louis JJ (2000) New concepts of minimally invasive preparations: a SI/STA concept. In: Roulet JF, Degrange M (eds) Adhesion: the silent revolution. Quintessence, London, pp 107–152

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lasfargues JJ (2000) SISTA concept: new guidelines for prophylaxis and adhesive dentistry. In: Tagami J, Toledano M, Prati C (eds) Advanced adhesive dentistry—proceedings of the Granada International Symposium. International, Como, pp 301–307

  20. Lasfargues J J, Bukiet F, Tirlet G, Decup F (2001) Bonded partial restorations for endodontically treated teeth. In: Roulet JF, Wilson NHF, Fuzzi M (eds) Advances in operative dentistry. Contemporary clinical practice. Vol 1. Quintessence, Paris, pp 191–209

  21. Maragakis GM, Hahn P, Hellwig E (2001) Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal in primary molars and its acceptance by patients. Caries Res 35:205–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mjor IA, Odont D (2001) Pulp-dentin biology in restorative dentistry. Part 2: initial reactions to preparation of teeth for restorative procedures. Quintessence Int 32:537–551

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mount GJ, Hume WR (1997) A revised classification of carious lesions by site and size. Quintessence Int 28:301–303

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schutzbank SG, Galaini J, Kronman JH, Goldman M, Clark RE (1978) A comparative in vitro study of GK-101 and GK-101E in caries removal. J Dent Res 57:861–864

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Siegel SC, von Fraunhofer JA (1999) Dental cutting with diamond burs: heavy-handed or light-touch? J Prosthodont 8:3–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Siegel SC, von Fraunhofer JA (1998). Dental cutting: the historical development of diamond burs. J Am Dent Assoc 129:740–745

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Splieth C, Rosin M, Gellissen B (2001) Determination of residual dentin caries after conventional mechanical and chemomechanical caries removal with Carisolv. Clin Oral Invest 5:250–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Albrektsson T, Bratthall D, Glantz P-O, Lindhe J (2001) Tissue preservation in caries treatment. Quintessence, London, p 367

  29. Yip HK, Samaranayake LP (1998) Caries removal techniques and instrumentation: a review. Clin Oral Invest 2:148–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Yip HK, Stevenson AG, Beeley JA (1995) An improved reagent for chemomechanical caries removal in permanent and deciduous teeth: an in vitro study. J Dent 23:197–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the patients who participated, Prof. Gerard Lasfargues for his helpful cooperation with Epi-Info software, Medi-Team (Sweden) and Medicadent-Pharmadent (France) for supporting this work, and all the participating public hospital Odontology service heads for allowing this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Surgery, University Paris 5, Montrouge, France

    C. Chaussain-Miller, F. Decup, R. Kaleka, F. Toumelin-Chemla & J. J. Lasfargues

  2. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Surgery, University of Bordeaux II, 33082, Bordeaux, France

    D. Gillet

  3. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Surgery, University of Clermont Ferrand I, 63000, Clermont Ferrand, France

    S. Domejean-Orliaguet

  4. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Surgery, University of Montpellier I, 34193, Montpellier, France

    J. Lafont

  5. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Surgery, University of Nantes, 44042, Nantes, France

    O. Laboux

  6. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Surgery, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, 06108, Nice, France

    E. Medioni

  7. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Surgery, University of Reims Champagne Ardenne, 51100, Reims, France

    J. Tubiana

  8. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Surgery, University of Rennes I, 35000, Rennes, France

    M. Guigand

  9. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Surgery, University of Strasbourg I, 67000, Strasbourg, France

    R. Serfaty

  10. Department of Endodontics and Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Surgery, University Paris 5, 1 rue Maurice Arnoux, 92120, Montrouge, France

    J. J. Lasfargues

Authors
  1. C. Chaussain-Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Decup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Domejean-Orliaguet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Gillet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Guigand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Kaleka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. O. Laboux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. Lafont
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. E. Medioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. R. Serfaty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. F. Toumelin-Chemla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. J. Tubiana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. J. J. Lasfargues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. J. Lasfargues.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chaussain-Miller, C., Decup, F., Domejean-Orliaguet, S. et al. Clinical evaluation of the Carisolv chemomechanical caries removal technique according to the site/stage concept, a revised caries classification system. Clin Oral Invest 7, 32–37 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0196-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0196-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation