A comparative evaluation of dentin caries removal with polymer bur and conventional burs—An in vitro study

Vijay Kumar Shakya, Anil Chandra, Aseem Prakash Tikku, Promila Verma, Rakesh Kumar Yadav

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow, India.

DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2012.21002                

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the comparative efficacy of Polymer bur (Smartprep) and Conventional burs (Carbide bur & Diamond Points) in selective Dentin caries removal. Materials and method: 15 freshly extracted carious human premolars and molars were selected for this study. These teeth were split in the center of carious lesion, in order to obtain two corresponding half. Thus 30 samples were prepared in this way. These were randomly divided in to 3 groups of 10 samples each. Group 1: The carious portion of these samples was excavated with the help of polymer bur Smartprep (SS White). Group 3: Prepared with Tungsten carbide round bur (No. 018). Group 3: Prepared with the help of Diamond points (No. 018). The period of time involved in this process is measured. After excavation of all carious lesions, a longitudinal section from mid most part of lesion was obtain with the help of diamond disc at slow speed. After staining with caries detector dye “Seek”, the sections were subjected to histological evaluation under stereomicro-scope. The thickness of remaining caries is measured in more or less than 1 mm. Results: The difference in grading of remaining carious dentin between Polymer bur and Conventional burs were statistically non- significant, but Polymer bur taken more time in comparison to Conventional burs. Conclusion: Smartprep bur is more conservative in selectively dentin caries removal than Conventional burs but same time it is more time consuming than Conventional burs.

Keywords

Polymer Bur (Smartprep); Carbide Bur & Diamond Points; Dentin Caries; PBS Buffer

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Massler, M. (1967) Changing concepts in the treatment of carious lesions. British Dental Journal, 123, 547-548.
[2]	Fusayama, T. (1979) Two layers of carious dentin; diagnosis and treatment. Operative Dent, 4, 63-70.
[3]	Wei, S.H., Kaqueller, J.C. and Massler, M. (1968) Remineralization of carious dentin. Journal of Dental Research, 47, 381-391. doi:10.1177/00220345680470030701
[4]	Briley, J.B., Dove, S.B., Mertz-Fairhurst, E.J. and Hermesch, C.B. (1997) Computer-assisted densitometric image analysis of previously sealed carious teeth: A pilot study. Operative Dent, 22, 105-114.
[5]	Ribeiro, C.C., Baratieri, L.N., Perdig?o, J., Baratieri, N.M. and Ritter, A.V. (1999) A clinical, radiographic, and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of adhesive restorations on carious dentin in primary teeth. Quintessence International, 30, 591-599.
[6]	Daniel, W. and Boston, D.M.D. (2004) New device for selective dentin caries removal, Quintes-sence International, Indian edition, 3, 40-47.
[7]	Dammaschke, T., Rodenberg, T.N., Schafer, S. and Ott, K.H.R. (2006) Efficacy of the Polymer bur Smartprep compared with conventional Tungsten carbide bud bur in Dentin caries excavation, Operative dentistry, 31, 256-260. doi:10.2341/05-24 PMid:16827030
[8]	Roberson, T.M., Stur-devants, C.M., Roberson, T.M., Heymann, H.O. and Swift, E.J. (2002) Sturevant’s art and science of operative dentistry. 4th Edition, Mosby, St. Louis.
[9]	Banerjee, A., Kidd, E.A.M. and Watson, T.F. (2000) In vitro evaluation of five alternative methods of carious dentine excavation, Caries Research, 34, 144-150.
[10]	Banerjee, A., Sherriff, M., Kidd, E.A.M. and Watson, T.F. (1999) A confocal microscopic study relating the autofluorescence of carious dentine to its microhardness, British Dental Journal, 187, 206-210.
[11]	Yamada, T., Nakamura, K., Iwaku, M. and Fuseyama, T. (1983) The extent of the odontoblast process in normal and carious human dentin. Journal of Dental Research, 62, 798-802. doi:10.1177/00220345830620070401