Carisolv去腐对155例牙科畏惧症患儿影响的观察

目的　比较Carisolv去腐和传统车针去腐对牙科畏惧症患儿的影响。方法　选择门诊龋齿患儿300例,其中采用Carisolv去腐155例,传统车针去腐145例,比较2组患儿的CFSS-DS评分值、术中行为分级、疼痛情况和去腐时间。结果　2组患儿CFSS-DS评分值治疗前无显著性差异,治疗后有显著性差异;2组患儿术中行为分级、疼痛率和去腐时间均有显著性差异。结论　Carisolv去腐可有效缓解儿童对牙科的畏惧,值得临床推广。     

行为分级法评估不同去龋方法对儿童牙科畏惧的影响

目的：用行为分级法评估不同去龋方法对儿童牙科畏惧的影响。方法：选取有乳磨牙牙本质中龋的儿童90名，随机分到3个不同的治疗组：化学机械去龋组、非创伤性充填组（ART）及传统车针去龋组进行治疗。对治疗过程全程摄像，然后由两名评分员根据Frankl量表对患儿牙科畏惧程度进行评估，比较不同的去龋方法对儿童牙科畏惧的影响。结果：化学机械去龋组Frankl值平均秩和为51．33，而ART组和传统去龋组分别为48．24和37．03。传统去龋组与ART组、化学机械去龋组比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05），而ART组与化学机械去龋组间无显著性差异（P〉0．05）。结论：化学机械去龋及ART较传统车针去龋能有效缓解儿童牙科畏惧。     

Er：YAG 激光龋齿去腐对低龄儿童牙科焦虑症影响的初步观察

临床选取3岁±3月、乳磨牙(牙合)面Ⅱ度龋的患儿20例,随机分成试验组（激光组）和对照组（车针组,n ＝10）,在不使用开口器、束缚带的情况下分别用 Er：YAG 激光和车针去腐。观察患儿初诊、复诊时治疗成功率及畏惧程度。结果显示激光组治疗成功率高于车针组（P ＜0．05）,畏惧程度低于车针组（P ＜0．05）。激光治疗可缓解儿童牙科焦虑,有利于提高临床治疗成功率。     

3种不同龋病治疗方法对儿童牙科畏惧症的影响

目的比较3种不同龋病治疗方法对儿童牙科畏惧症的影响。方法选择乳磨牙患Ⅱ度龋的90例患儿,随机分为不同龋病治疗组:传统车针去龋组、非创伤性修复(atraumatic restorative treatment,ART)组、化学-机械去龋组。运用面部表情分级法(Facial Image Scale,FIS)比较3组患儿的畏惧程度。采用SPSS19.0软件包进行卡方检验统计学处理。结果 3组畏惧程度有显著性差异(P<0.05),传统去龋组的畏惧程度高于其他两组,其与ART组之间的差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论非创伤性修复法和化学-机械去龋法可较为有效地缓解儿童牙科畏惧。     

Carisolv去龋技术对儿童牙科畏惧症的影响

目的 探讨2种去龋方法 充填乳磨牙邻牙合洞时对儿童牙科畏惧症(dental fear,DF)的影响.方法 选择160例首次接受治疗的乳磨牙邻牙合面龋患儿,随机分为试验组和对照组,每组80例.试验组采用Carisolv化学机械去龋,对照组采用常规牙钻去龋, 2组均采用自酸蚀黏接剂加后牙光固化树脂充填.采用Frankl行为分级法进行DF评定.结果 试验组DF发生率为60.00%,对照组为93.75%,试验组DF发生率明显低于对照组(P＜0.05).结论 在乳磨牙邻牙合面龋治疗中采用Carisolv化学机械去龋技术,能有效降低儿童DF发生率,且安全、有效、无痛,患儿容易接受.     

Carisolv化学机械去龋系统的临床评价

目的：评价Carisolv化学机械去龋系统的去龋时间、术中疼痛和近期疗效。方法：收集3～9岁儿童龋病患者80例,随机分为两组,每组40例,通过临床观察比较Carisolv化学机械去龋系统和常规车针去龋系统的去龋时间、术中疼痛、近期疗效。结果：窝洞制备时Carisolv较车针耗时要长（P〈0.05）,术中疼痛发生率有显著差异（P〈0．05）,近期疗效评价两组的差别无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论：Carisolv化学机械去龋系统可用于儿童龋病的治疗。     

Carisolv用于年轻恒磨牙化学机械去腐的临床效果研究

治疗龋齿传统上采用车针机械去腐,通常会导致磨除过多的健康牙本质甚至引起不必要的露髓,且常给患儿带来心理上的不适,引起牙科恐惧症.Carisolv系统(伢典)是一种龋齿微创治疗技术,它能选择性地软化龋坏牙体组织,然后用配套的手用工具将坏死的组织完全清理干净.该方法可以避免或减少牙科恐惧症的发生.本实验采用伢典治疗儿童年轻恒磨牙龋齿并对其临床效果进行评估.     

3种儿童牙科畏惧评估方法的一致性研究

目的比较3种儿童牙科畏惧评估方法一致性。方法选取有乳磨牙牙本质中龋的儿童90例,随机分为3个不同的治疗组化学-机械去龋组、非创伤性充填组(ART)及传统车针去龋组。同时采用生理测试法、投射测试法及行为分级法,评估不同治疗组患儿的牙科畏惧情况,所得资料采用SPSS11.5软件包进行单因素方差分析、卡方检验及Kruskal-Wallis检验。对评估结果进行比较,以探讨3种评估方法的一致性。结果生理测试法显示,传统去龋组,儿童牙科畏惧程度最高,其次为化学-机械去龋组,ART组最低;投射测试法则显示传统去龋组畏惧率最高,为43.3%,化学-机械去龋组和ART组分别为17.2%和16.1%。传统去龋组畏惧率与ART组、化学-机械去龋组相比,差异均有显著性(P<0.05),而ART组与化学-机械去龋组间差异无显著性(P>0.05)。行为分级法评估发现,传统去龋组畏惧程度最高,ART组次之,化学-机械去龋组最低。传统去龋组与ART组、化学-机械去龋组相比,差异均有显著性(P<0.05),而ART组与化学-机械去龋组间差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论3种儿童牙科畏惧评估方法的评估结果基本一致。     

生理测试法评估3种去龋方法对儿童牙科畏惧的影响

目的：用生理测试法评估不同去龋方法对儿童牙科畏惧的影响.方法：选取90例有乳磨牙中龋的儿童,随机分为化学机械去龋组（第1组）、非创伤性充填组（第2组）及传统车针去龋组（第3组）.分别于治疗前、治疗后5、10、15min及治疗结束时测量患儿血压和脉搏值,记为T0、T1、T2、T3和TE.通过观察患儿血压和脉搏的变化,评估不同去龋方法对儿童牙科畏惧的影响.实验资料用SPSS11.5统计软件包进行单因素方差分析,并用Student-Newman-Keuls法对不同治疗方法和时间的血压、脉搏值进行两两比较.结果：在时间点T1,第3组各指标与第1组差异无显著性（P＞0.05）,与第2组差异有显著性（P＜0.05）,第1组与第2组各指标间差异无显著性（P＞0.05）;在时间点T2,第3组收缩压与第1组、第2组差异有显著性（P＜0.05）,而第2组与第1组间差异无显著性（P＞0.05）,其他指标3组间差异无显著性（P＞0.05）;以后各时间点各指标间差异均无显著性（P＞0.05）.结论：化学机械去龋及非创伤性充填较传统车针去龋,能有效缓解儿童牙科畏惧.     

Carisolv去腐方法治疗龋齿的临床对比研究

目的：比较Carisolv化学-机械去腐方法与传统车针技术的临床效果。方法：筛选口腔内科门诊牙体病组患者60名，每名患者有2个同颌同名的原发面龋损，分别采用Carisolv和车针去腐充填。术后记录患者对每种去腐技术的感受，操作医师则记录去腐时间、麻醉需要及牙龈反应等，并观察治疗成功率。结果：60例中80％反馈应用Carisolv治疗更舒适。Carisolv去腐时问比车针明显长；46％使用车针治疗的患者需要麻醉，而Carisolv仅6％；无一例Carisolv引起牙龈反应。追踪观察1年、2年面龋的治疗成功率：Carisolv93．3％、87．9％，车针88．3％、82．8％，相比无显著性差异。结论：Carisolv微创技术具有安全、有效、无痛、无害等特点。     

Carisolv化学机械去龋临床应用效果的初步评价

目的评价Carisolv化学机械去龋临床应用效果。方法选取100个中、深龋恒牙等分为2组,实验组用Carisolv化学机械法去龋,对照组用慢速球钻去龋,记录去龋时间、医患双方对患者术中疼痛反应的评价等。结果2组去龋时间分别是(6.17±1.92)min、(2.83±0.93)min,以Carisolv组为长(P<0.01);去龋术中疼痛感以Carisolv组较小(P<0.01)。结论Cari-solv化学机械去龋法是龋病治疗中一个可供选择的方法。     

Carisolv(伢典)微创化学机械去龋法治疗老年人龋齿的临床研究

目的:评价伢典微创化学机械去龋法治疗老年人龋齿的有效性和安全性.方法:门诊老年龋齿病人48例,随机分为伢典治疗组30例和对照组18例,分别采用伢典凝胶去龋和常规磨牙去龋,比较两组病人的感受,治疗所用时间,治疗效果.结果:伢典治疗组病人痛苦小,安全,但所用时间长于对照组.结论:伢典化学机械去龋法治疗老年人龋齿安全、有效、无痛.     

Clinical randomized controlled trial of chemomechanical caries removal (Carisolv)

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the chemomechanical caries-removal system (Carisolv) with high-speed excavation in cavitated occlusal caries of primary molars. Design and setting. The study was a randomized controlled, clinical trial in which the two techniques were compared in each subject. Participants were chosen from public schools, in Maracaibo County, Zulia State, Venezuela. SAMPLE AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 80 primary molars selected from 40 children (mean age 7.7+/-0.7 years). Each patient had at least two contralateral primary molars with cavitated occlusal caries and approximately equal-size access to lesions. The outcome variables were: clinically complete caries removal, size of the opening of the cavity, volume of carious tissue removed, pain during caries removal, anaesthesia requested by the patient, caries-removal time, and behaviour and preference of patients. RESULTS: All treated molars were clinically caries free whichever caries-removal procedure was used. When Carisolv' was used the final cavity entrance sizes were smaller (P<0.001) and the estimated volume of tissue removed was less (P<0.001). The time taken for caries removal was three times longer (7.51+/-1.83 min, P<0.001). Some pain was reported by seven (17.5%) participants when Carisolv was used, compared with 16 (40%) when high-speed excavation was used (P<0.05). Using the Carisolv method there was a higher proportion of patients with positive behaviour (P<0.01), and 71.0% (P<0.05) preferred this treatment. CONCLUSION: Carisolv is an effective clinical alternative treatment for the removal of occlusal dentinal caries in cavitated primary molars; it is more conservative of dental tissue and appeared to be more comfortable for most patients, although the clinical time spent is longer than when using high-speed excavation.     

Removing dentine caries in deciduous teeth with Carisolv: a randomised, controlled, prospective study with six-month follow-up, comparing chemomechanical treatment with drilling

Dental fear is often associated with experience of pain, unpleasant sounds and uncomfortable vibrations caused by dental drills. Therefore patients welcome alternative, less painful excavating methods such as lasers, sandblasters and chemomechanical systems. The aim of this study was to compare a chemomechanical caries removal system (Carisolv) to traditional drilling with regard to patient acceptance and time consumption as well as the six-month success rate of fillings. Ninety-two primary teeth in 46 children were included in the study. From this study, the following conclusions can be drawn: patient acceptance of Carisolv-treatment compared to drilling is excellent, since 65% would choose Carisolv and no one drilling when treated next time. The dentists rated patients' degree of pain significantly lower in Carisolv situations than in drill situations. Time consumption is significantly higher when excavating with Carisolv (6.7 min.) than with drill (3.3 min.). The durability of fillings six months after treatment is equal in the two groups.     

Clinical evaluation of a chemomechanical method for caries removal in children and adolescents

Objective. The purpose of this study was to make a clinical comparison of the chemomechanical method for caries removal and the conventional rotary instruments technique when used in children and adolescents. Material and Methods. The study comprised 120 patients aged 3–17 years randomized into two groups: caries were removed chemomechanically in 60 patients and 60 patients received conventional treatment with rotary instruments. The outcome variables were: clinically complete caries removal, pain during caries removal, need for local anesthesia, treatment time, preferences of patients, and clinical success of the restorations during the 12-month evaluation period. Results. Complete caries removal was achieved in 92% of chemomechanically treated teeth and in all teeth treated with rotary instruments (p>0.05). The chemomechanical method significantly reduced the need for local anesthesia (p<0.001). Eighty-five percent of patients treated with Carisolv and 47% treated with rotary instruments were satisfied with the treatment (p<0.05). The mean time for chemomechanical caries removal was 11.2±3.3 min and 5.2±2.8 min for caries removal with rotary instruments (p<0.001). At the end of the 12-month evaluation period, there was no observed influence of the caries removal method on the survival of the restorations. Conclusions. The chemomechanical caries removal technique is an adequate alternative to the conventional rotary instruments method and is advantageous in pediatric dentistry.     

Does chemomechanical caries removal affect dentine adhesion?

The purpose of this study was to determine whether shear bond strengths (SBS) to chemomechanically excavated dentine (Carisolv) differed from the SBS after conventional caries removal (bur). The following adhesive systems were used: Dyract AP/NRC/Prime & Bond NT; Dyract AP/Prime & Bond NT; Tetric Ceram/ Syntac SC; Tetric Ceram/Syntac SC (no etch) (TC 2); Definite/Etch & Prime 3.0; Definite/experimental. One-hundred and twenty human molars with occlusal caries were assigned to 12 groups. Sequential caries removal was controlled with laser fluorescence. After water storage, the samples were tested in a single-plane shear test assembly. The results demonstrated differences between the bonding systems, whereas the mode of caries removal had no consistent effect. If total etch technique was neglected, the results of the composite resin (TC 2) indicated a tendency to higher SBS in the Carisolv group (18.6 +/- 4.6 MPa) compared with conventional treatment (14.1 +/- 3.9 MPa). The present data demonstrate that chemomechanical caries removal has no adverse effect on bonding of modern adhesive systems to dentine. Smear layer-dissolving or -modifying bonding systems could potentially benefit from chemomechanical pretreatment.     

A comparative clinical study on the Carisolv caries removal method.

OBJECTIVE: Carisolv is a relatively new chemomechanical method for caries removal. The aim of this clinical study was to compare Carisolv with the conventional drilling technique. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Forty-five volunteers, ages 18 to 55 years, each with two contralateral primary coronal mesio-occlusal or disto-occlusal carious lesions, similar in extent, participated in the study. Two calibrated operators treated all lesions. One operator treated both lesions in one visit (one lesion with Carisolv and the other with conventional drilling). Following the filling procedure, the opinion of each patient regarding each caries removal method was recorded. The need for drilling in addition to the Carisolv application, the time required for caries removal, the need for anesthesia, and the gingival reaction to the Carisolv gel were recorded by each operator for each case. RESULTS: The patients found Carisolv treatment more pleasant (82%) and preferable (88%) to drilling. Of the patients treated with drilling, 40% required anesthesia compared to the 8% treated with Carisolv. Additional drilling for complete caries removal was needed in 10% of Carisolv-treated lesions. Carisolv induced no gingival reaction. Significantly longer times were required for caries removal with Carisolv (12.2 +/- 4.1 minutes) compared to drilling (6.8 +/- 2.8 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: The Carisolv technique was: (a) accepted by the majority of patients, (b) efficient for caries removal, (c) considered a time-consuming technique for the dentists, and (d) considered less dependent on local anesthesia.