The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 137, No 12, 1658-1666.
© 2006 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peters, M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Inglehart, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Peters, M. C.
Right arrow Articles by Inglehart, M. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Restoratives

CLINICAL PRACTICE

JADA Continuing Education

Chemomechanical caries removal in children

Efficacy and efficiency



Mathilde C. Peters, DMD, PhD, Michael H. Flamenbaum, DMD, MS, Nnenna N. Eboda, DDS, MS, Robert J. Feigal, DDS, PhD and Marita R. Inglehart, Dr. phil habil

Background. The authors investigated the effectiveness of chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) compared with the traditional method (TM) of caries removal using a round bur when treating dentinal-depth occlusal lesions with minimal enamel access in primary molars. The authors also compare CMCR with TM to determine if it had a higher efficacy and could be used more frequently without the subject’s having to undergo local anesthesia.

Methods. The authors collected data from 50 children during operative appointments at which caries was removed using one of the two methods.

Results. Complete caries removal within 15 minutes was achieved in only 57.7 percent of the CMCR-treated teeth. In 42.3 percent of these teeth, residual caries was removed using TM. CMCR was almost eight times more time-consuming than was TM when used to excavate dentinal-depth occlusal lesions with minimal cavitation. There was no significant difference between CMCR and TM in the number of subjects who needed to undergo local anesthesia.

Conclusions. The authors found no direct clinical advantage in using CMCR over using TM for treating occlusal dentinal lesions with minimal cavitation in pediatric patients.

Key Words: Dental restoration; pediatric dentistry; carious lesions; caries; dental cavity preparation




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
M. R. Inglehart, M. C. Peters, M. H. Flamenbaum, N. N. Eboda, and R. J. Feigal
Chemomechanical caries removal in children: An operator's and pediatric patients' responses
J Am Dent Assoc, January 1, 2007; 138(1): 47 - 55.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2006 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.