We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International



Forgotten password?


Quintessence Int 34 (2003), No. 4     1. Apr. 2003
Quintessence Int 34 (2003), No. 4  (01.04.2003)

Page 269-271

A comparative clinical study on the Carisolv caries removal method
Kakaboura, Afrodite / Masouras, Costas / Staikou, Olga / Vougiouklakis, George
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.