medigraphic.com
ISSN 1659-1046 (Impreso)
Odovtos - International Journal of Dental Sciences

2024, Número 3

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Odovtos-Int J Dent Sc 2024; 26 (3)


Agentes químico-mecánicos versus sistema rotatorio para la remoción de caries: una revisión sistemática de estudios in vitro

Quiroz-Reynoso JM, Mungi-Castañeda S, Marroquín-Soto C, Carranza-Samanez KM, Dulanto-Vargas JA

Idioma: Ingles.
Referencias bibliográficas: 58
Paginas: 55-78
Archivo PDF: 600.63 Kb.


RESUMEN

Esta revisión sistemática tuvo como propósito comparar la eficacia y la eficiencia de los agentes químico-mecánicos (AQM) frente al sistema rotatorio (SR) para la remoción de caries dental (CD) en molares permanentes. La búsqueda se realizó en cinco bases de datos electrónica (PubMed, Ebsco, Scopus, ScienceDirect, LILACS) y literatura gris, complementada con búsqueda manual en revistas de impacto, hasta julio de 2022 en idioma inglés, español y portugués. La eficacia del tratamiento de CD se analizó de forma histológica, microbiológica, radiográfica o fisicoquímico-mecánicas y la eficiencia según el menor tiempo para la remoción. El riesgo de sesgo se evaluó con la herramienta RoB. De 914 publicaciones, se incluyeron 9 estudios que evaluaron 337 molares con diseño partido tratados con SR de baja o alta velocidad y AQM, como Carisolv, Papacarie, Carie Care y Brix 3000. Más estudios demostraron diferencias significativas (p‹0,05) donde Carisolv tuvo mayor cantidad de caries residual, presencia de bacterias en dentina y menor extensión o volumen de caries eliminada, mientras que Papacarie mostró ausencia de barrillo dentinario en túbulos dentinarios y SR obtuvo mayores valores de microdureza y requirió menor tiempo para la remoción. No hubo diferencias entre ambos métodos respecto a valoración de calcio y fósforo o la resistencia a la unión (p≥0,05). Los AQM eliminaron la DC con menos invasión de los tejidos de dentina sanos en comparación con el RS, pero aminoraron la dureza de la superficie y requirieron un tiempo de eliminación más prolongado.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Rathee M., Sapra A. Dental Caries. In:StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearlsPublishing; 2023 June 21.

  2. Santos T.M.L., Bresciani E., Matos F.S.,Camargo S.E.A., Hidalgo A.P.T., RiveraL.M.L., Bernardino Í.M., Paranhos L.R.Comparison between conventional and chemomechanical approaches for the removal ofcarious dentin: an in vitro study. Sci Rep.2020; 10 (1): 8127. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65159-x

  3. Ramos-Gomez F., Kinsler J., Askaryar H.Understanding oral health disparities inchildren as a global public health issue: howdental health professionals can make a difference. J Public Health Policy 2020 Jun; 41 (2):114-124. doi: 10.1057/s41271-020-00222-5

  4. Bratu D.C., Nikolajevic-Stoican N., Popa G.,Pop S.I., Dragoș B., Luca M.M. A Bibliometric analysis (2010-2020) of the dentalscientific literature on chemo-mechanicalmethods of caries removal using Carisolvand BRIX3000. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;

  5. 58 (6): 788. doi: 10.3390/medicina580607885. Meyfarth S., Cassano K., Warol F., de DeusSantos M., Scarparo A. A New Efficient agentfor chemo-mechanical caries removal. Brazilian J Dent. 2020; 77: e1946. doi: 10.18363/bro.v77.2020.e1946

  6. Bjørndal L., Simon S., Tomson P.L., DuncanH.F. Management of deep caries and theexposed pulp. Int Endod J. 2019; 52 (7):949-973. doi: 10.1111/iej.13128

  7. Souza T.F., Martins M.L., Magno M.B.,Vicente-Gomila J.M., Fonseca-Gonçalves A.,Maia L.C. Worldwide research trends on theuse of chemical-mechanical caries removalproducts over the years: a critical review. EurArch Paediatr Dent. 2022; 23 (6):869-883.doi: 10.1007/s40368-022-00726-6.

  8. Hamama H., Yiu C., Burrow M. Currentupdate of chemomechanical caries removalmethods. Aust Dent J. 2014; 59 (4): 446-456.doi:10.1111/adj.12214

  9. Mithra N.H., Abhishek M. Chemomechanical Caries Removal: A Conservative andpain-free approach. Adv Res GastroenteroHepatol. 2017; 5 (3): 555666. doi: 10.19080/ARGH.2017.05.555666

  10. Cardoso M., Coelho A., Lima R., Amaro I.,Paula A., Marto C.M., Sousa J., SpagnuoloG., Marques Ferreira M., Carrilho E.Efficacy and patient's acceptance of alternative methods for caries removal-a systematicreview. J Clin Med. 2020; 9 (11): 3407. doi:10.3390/jcm9113407

  11. Maru V.P., Shakuntala B.S., NagarathnaC. Caries removal by chemomechanical(Carisolv™) vs. Rotary Drill: a systematicreview. Open Dent J. 2015 Dec 31; 9: 462-472.doi: 10.2174/1874210601509010462

  12. Bhattacharjee A.P., Gavarraju D.N., SharmaY., Singh S., Sehrawat K., Tiwari R.V.C.Chemomechanical removal of caries - an invasive method as an extension for prevention: a review. Int J Med Rev. 2017; 4 (3):66-69. doi: 10.29252/ijmr-040302

  13. Puri A., Gaurav K., Kaur J., Sethi D., JindalL., Jain S. Chemomechanical caries removal:an overview. IDA Lud J-le Dent 2020; 4 (2):27-38. doi:10.21276/ledent.2021.05.02.03

  14. Abdelaziz, E., Badran, A., Allam, G. Chemomechanical caries removal agents and theirapplications in pediatric dentistry. Adv.Dent. J., 2022; 4 (1): 11-18. doi: 10.21608/adjc.2021.103368.1119

  15. Maashi M.S., Elkhodary H.M., Alamoudi N.M.,Bamashmous N.O. Chemomechanical cariesremoval methods: a literature review. SaudiDent J. 2023; 35 (3): 233-243. doi:10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.01.010

  16. Mazumdar P., Choudhury S.R., Das D., MurmuL.B. Che-momechanical caries removal agents- an overview. J Indian Dent Assoc. 2019; 35(1): 9-14.

  17. Eftimoska M., Petroska A., Terzievski B.,Rendzova V., Apostol-ska S. Comparative studyof caries removal using Brix 3000 and classicalmechanical method. Dent Serbian J. 2022; 69(2): 57-65. doi: 10.2298/SGS2202057E

  18. Thazhatheethil A., Hiremath M.C., Sarakanuru S.K., Surendranath P., Kothari N.R.Scanning electron microscopic evaluation ofresidual dentin surface in primary teeth afterusing two chemo-mechanical caries removalagents: an in vitro study. J Pediatr Dent. 2021;7 (2): 49-57. doi: 10.14744/JPD.2021.04_35

  19. Tufanaru C., Munn Z., Aromataris E.,Campbell J., Hopp L. Chapter 3: Systematicreviews of effectiveness. In: Aromataris E,Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for EvidenceSynthesis. JBI, 2020. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-20-04

  20. Alvarez D., Barmak A.B., Rossouw P.E.,Michelogiannakis D. Comparison of shearbond strength of orthodontic brackets bondedto human teeth with and without fluoroticenamel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental in vitro studies. OrthodCraniofac Res. 2023; 26 (2): 141-150. doi:10.1111/ocr.12602

  21. Vasudevan A., Santosh S.S., Selvakumar R.J.,Sampath D.T., Natanasabapathy V. Dynamicnavigation in guided endodontics – a systematic review. Eur Endod J. 2022; 7 (2):81-91. doi: 10.14744/eej.2022.96168

  22. Banerjee A., Kidd E.A., Watson T.F. In vitroevaluation of five alternative methods ofcarious dentine excavation. Caries Res. 2000;34 (2): 144-150. doi: 10.1159/000016582

  23. Yazici A.R., Atílla P., Özgünaltay G., Müftüoglu S. In vitro comparison of the efficacy ofCarisolv and conventional rotary instrumentin caries removal. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30 (12): 1177-1182. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2003.01627.x

  24. Meller C., Nourallah A.W., Heyduck C.,Steffen H., Splieth C.H. Chemo-mechanicaldentine caries removal with Carisolv using arotating brush. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2006; 7(2): 73-76.

  25. Avinash A., Grover S.D., Koul M., NayakM.T., Singhvi A., Singh R.K. Comparison of mechanical and chemomechanicalmethods of caries removal in deciduous andpermanent teeth: A SEM study. J Indian SocPedod Prev Dent. 2012; 30 (2): 115-121. doi:10.4103/0970-4388.99982

  26. Hamama H.H., Yiu C.K., Burrow M.F., KingN.M. Chemical, morphological, and microhardness changes of dentine after chemomechanical caries removal. Aust Dent J. 2013;58 (3): 283-292. doi: 10.1111/adj.12093

  27. Katirci G., Ermis R.B. Microindentationhardness and calcium/phosphorus ratio ofdentin following excavation of dental carieslesions with different techniques. Springerplus. 2016; 5 (1): 1641. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-3289-8

  28. Nair S., Nadig R.R., Pai V.S., Gowda Y.Effect of a Papain-based chemomechanicalagent on the structure of dentin and bondstrength: an in vitro Study. Int J Clin PediatrDent 2018; 11 (3): 161-166. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1504

  29. Thomas A.R., Nagraj S.K., Mani R.,Haribabu R. Comparative evaluation of theefficiency of caries removal using variousminimally invasive techniques with conventional rotary instruments using cone beamcomputed tomography: An in vitro study.J Int Oral Heal. 2020; 12 (3): 253-259. doi:10.4103/JIOH.JIOH_256_19

  30. Cederlund A., Lindskog S., Blomlöf J.Efficacy of Carisolv-assisted caries excavation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1999;19 (5): 464-469. doi: 10.11607/prd.00.0337

  31. Borompiyasawat P., Putraphan B., Luangworakhun S., Sukarawan W., TechatharatipO. Chlorhexidine gluconate enhances theremineralization effect of high viscosity glassionomer cement on dentin carious lesions invitro. BMC Oral Health. 2022; 22 (1): 60-61.doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02098-1

  32. Li Y., Liu M., Xue M., Kang Y., Liu D., WenY., et al. Engineered biomaterials triggerremineralization and antimicrobial effects fordental caries restoration. Molecules. 2023; 28(17): 6373. doi: 10.3390/molecules28176373

  33. Jara-Porroa J.J., De la Cruz-Sedano G.S.,Ventura-Flores A.K., Perona-Miguel dePriego G.A. Herramientas actuales para eldiagnóstico, manejo y control de la cariesdental. parte II. Una revisión de la literatura.Rev Cient Odontol (Lima). 2020; 8 (1): e007.doi: 10.21142/2523-2754-0801-2020-007

  34. Warreth A. Dental caries and its management. Int J Dent. 2023; 2023: 9365845. doi:10.1155/2023/9365845

  35. Tang K., Wang F., Dai S.Q., Yang Z.Y., DuanL.Y., Luo M.L., et al. Enhanced bonding tocaries-affected dentin using an isocyanatebased primer. J Dent Res. 2023; 102 (13):1444-1451. doi: 10.1177/00220345231199416

  36. Ramamoorthi S., Nivedhitha M.S., Vanajassun P.P. Effect of two different chemomechanical caries removal agents on dentinmicrohardness: an in vitro study. J ConservDent. 2013; 16: 429-33. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.117520

  37. Nakajima M., Kunawarote S., PrasansuttipornT., Tagami J. Bonding to caries-affected dentin.Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2011; 47 (2): 102-114. doi:10.1016/j.jdsr.2011.03.002

  38. Dorri M., Martinez-Zapata M.J., WalshT., Marinho V.C., Sheiham Deceased A.,Zaror C. Atraumatic restorative treatmentversus conventional restorative treatment formanaging dental caries. Cochrane DatabaseSyst Rev. 2017; 12 (12): CD008072. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008072.pub2

  39. Cederlund A., Lindskog S., Blomlöf J. Efficacy of Carisolv-assisted caries excavation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1999; 19 (5):464-469. doi: 10.11607/prd.00.0337

  40. Hossain M., Nakamura Y., Tamaki Y., Yamada Y., Jayawardena J.A., Matsumoto K. Dentinal composition and Knoop hardness measurements of cavity floor following carious dentin removal with Carisolv. Oper Dent. 2003; 28 (4): 346-351.

  41. Jawa D., Singh S., Somani R., Jaidka S., Sirkar K., Jaidka R. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of chemomechanical caries removalagent (Papacarie) and conventional method of caries removal: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2010; 28 (2): 73-77. doi:10.4103/0970-4388.66739

  42. Lennon A.M., Buchalla W., Rassner B., Becker K., Attin T. Efficiency of 4 caries excavation methods compared. Oper Dent. 2006; 31 (5):

  43. 551-555. doi: 10.2341/05-925. Neves Ade A., Coutinho E., De Munck J., Van Meerbeek B. Caries-removal effectiveness and minimal-invasiveness potential of cariesexcavation techniques: a micro-CT investigation. J Dent. 2011; 39 (2): 154-162. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.11.006

  44. Ramamoorthi S., Nivedhitha M.S., Vanajassun P.P. Effect of two different chemomechanical caries removal agents on dentin microhardness: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2013; 16: 429-33. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.117520

  45. Sakoolnamarka R., Burrow M.F., Kubo S., Tyas M.J. Morphological study of demineralized dentine after caries removal using two differentmethods. Aust Dent J. 2002; 47 (2): 116-122. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00314.x

  46. Schutzrank S.G., Galaini J., Kronman J.H., Goldman M., Clark R.E. A Comparative in vitro study of GK-101 and GK-101E in cariesremoval. J Dent Res. 1978; 57 (9-10): 861-864. doi: 10.1177/00220345780570090201

  47. Splieth C , Rosin M , Gellissen B. Determination of residual dentine caries after conventional mechanical and chemomechanical cariesremoval with Carisolv. Clin Oral Investig. 2001; 5 (4): 250-253. doi: 10.1007/s00784-001-0130-7

  48. Tsanova S.Ts, Tomov GT. Morphological changes in hard dental tissues prepared by Er: YAG laser (LiteTouch, Syneron), Carisolv, androtary instruments. A scanning electron microscopy evaluation. Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2010; 52 (3): 46-55. doi: 10.2478/v10153-010-0006-1

  49. Zhang X., Tu R., Yin W., Zhou X., Li X., Hu D. Micro-computerized tomography assessment of fluorescence aided caries excavation (FACE)technology: comparison with three other caries removal techniques. Aust Dent J. 2013; 58 (4): 461-467. doi: 10.1111/adj.12106

  50. Banerjee A., Kidd E.A., Watson T.F. In vitro evaluation of five alternative methods of carious dentine excavation. Caries Res. 2000; 34 (2): 144-150. doi: 10.1159/000016582

  51. Yazici A.R., Atílla P., Özgünaltay G., Müftüoglu S. In vitro comparison of the efficacy of Carisolv and conventional rotary instrument in caries removal. J Oral Rehabil. 2003; 30 (12): 1177-1182. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2003.01627.x

  52. Meller C., Nourallah A.W., Heyduck C., Steffen H., Splieth C.H. Chemo-mechanical dentine caries removal with Carisolv using a rotating brush. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2006; 7 (2): 73-76.

  53. Avinash A., Grover S.D., Koul M., Nayak M.T., Singhvi A., Singh R.K. Comparison of mechanical and chemomechanical methods of caries removal in deciduous and permanent teeth: A SEM study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2012; 30 (2): 115-121. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.99982

  54. Hamama H.H., Yiu C.K., Burrow M.F., King N.M. Chemical, morphological, and microhardness changes of dentine after chemomechanical caries removal. Aust Dent J. 2013; 58 (3): 283-292. doi: 10.1111/adj.12093

  55. Katirci G., Ermis R.B. Microindentation hardness and calcium/phosphorus ratio of dentin following excavation of dental caries lesions with different techniques. Springerplus. 2016; 5 (1): 1641. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-3289-8

  56. Nair S., Nadig R.R., Pai V.S., Gowda Y. Effect of a Papain-based chemomechanical agent on the structure of dentin and bond strength: an in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018; 11 (3): 161-166. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1504

  57. Santos T.M.L., Bresciani E., Matos F.S., Camargo S.E.A., Hidalgo A.P.T., Rivera L.M.L., Bernardino Í.M., Paranhos L.R. Comparison between conventional and chemomechanical approaches for the removal of carious dentin: an in vitro study. Sci Rep. 2020; 10 (1): 8127. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65159-x

  58. Thomas A.R., Nagraj S.K., Mani R., Haribabu R. Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of caries removal using various minimally invasive techniques with conventional rotary instruments using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Int Oral Heal. 2020; 12 (3): 253-259. doi: 10.4103/JIOH.JIOH_256_19.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com