Evaluation of the Place of Chemo-Mechanical Caries Removal Method in Dental Education among Turkish Students

Serdar Baglar, Ayşe Tuğba Erturk Avunduk


Objective: To evaluate the place of chemo-mechanical caries removal (CMCR) methods within the scope of undergraduate education of two different dental faculties which located in close geography but with different socio-economic characteristics. Material and Methods: In this cross-sectional, descriptive study totally 130 participants (Ankara: n = 78 and Kırıkkale: n = 52) were evaluated. A survey which consisting of 14 questions were conducted by face to face. Data was analyzed using the SPSS software. Frequency distributions and the Chi-Square test were applied. Results: 66.9% of the participants reported that they had knowledge about the chemomechanical caries removal method.  60% had knowledge about the mechanism of CMCR. Thirty-six point two percent of the participants from Ankara stated that they had knowledge about the CMCR mechanism and 40% did not know about any of the methods of CMCR. 52.8% of the respondents indicated that they should be minimally invasive in choosing the CMCR method. The most important reason for not choosing the CMCR method was inadequate method (32%) and takes too much time (32%). Conclusion: Significant differences were found between the students of the two cities regarding the awareness of the CMCR method. In order to overcome this disparity, the curriculum place of the CMCR method needs to be determined precisely and clearly.


Education, Dental; Dental Caries; Students, Dental

Full Text:



Yonemoto K, Eguro T, Maeda T, Tanaka H. Application of Diagnodent® as a guide for removing carious dentin with Er: YAG laser. J Dent 2006; 34(4):269-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.07.001.

Banerjee A, Watson T, Kidd E. Dentine caries excavation: A review of current clinical techniques. Br Dent J 2000; 188(9):476-82. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800515.

Mjör IA. Pulp-dentin biology in restorative dentistry. Part 2: initial reactions to preparation of teeth for restorative procedures. Quintessence Int 2001; 32(7):537-51.

Heyeraas KJ, Sveen OB, Mjör IA. Pulp-dentin biology in restorative dentistry. Part 3: Pulpal inflammation and its sequelae. Quintessence Int 2001; 32(8):611-25.

Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, Götrick B, Bornstein R, Thorell J. Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemo–mechanical removal of caries. Caries Res 1999; 33(3):171-7. doi: 10.1159/000016513.

Beeley J, Yip H, Stevenson A. Chemochemical caries removal: A review of the techniques and latest developments. Br Dent J 2000; 188(8):427-30.

Kathuria V, Ankola AV, Hebbal M, Mocherla M. Carisolv - An innovative method of caries removal. J Clin Diagn Res 2013; 7(12):3111-5. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/6676.3873.

Bussadori S, Guedes C, Hermida Bruno M, Ram D. Chemo-mechanical removal of caries in an adolescent patient using a papain gel: Case report. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008; 32(3):177-80.

Piva E, Ogliari FA, Moraes RRd, Corá F, Henn S, Correr-Sobrinho L. Papain-based gel for biochemical caries removal: influence on microtensile bond strength to dentin. Braz Oral Res 2008; 22(4):364-70. doi: 10.1590/S1806-83242008000400014.

Jawa D, Singh S, Somani R, Jaidka S, Sirkar K, Jaidka R. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal agent (Papacarie) and conventional method of caries removal: An in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2010; 28(2):73-7. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.66739.

Clementino-Luedemann TN, Ilie ADN, Hickel R, Kunzelmann K-H. Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of a new enzyme solution for caries removal in deciduous teeth. Dent Mater J 2006; 25(4):675-83. doi: 10.4012/dmj.25.675.

Banerjee A, Kellow S, Mannocci F, Cook R, Watson T. An in vitro evaluation of microtensile bond strengths of two adhesive bonding agents to residual dentine after caries removal using three excavation techniques. J Dent 2010; 38(6):480-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.002.

Neves ADA, Coutinho E, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Caries-removal effectiveness and minimal-invasiveness potential of caries-excavation techniques: A micro-CT investigation. J Dent 2011; 39(2):154-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.11.006.

Kotb RMS, Abdella AA, El Kateb MA, Ahmed AM. Clinical evaluation of Papacarie in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009; 34(2):117-23.

Chaussain-Miller C, Decup F, Domejean-Orliaguet S, Gillet D, Guigand M, Kaleka R, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Carisolv chemomechanical caries removal technique according to the site/stage concept, a revised caries classification system. Clin Oral Investig 2003; 7(1):32-37. doi: 10.1007/s00784-003-0196-5.

Flückiger L, Waltimo T, Stich H, Lussi A. Comparison of chemomechanical caries removal using Carisolv™ or conventional hand excavation in deciduous teeth in vitro. J Dent 2005; 33(2):87-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.07.007.

Kakaboura A, Masouras C, Staikou O, Vougiouklakis G. A comparative clinical study on the Carisolv caries removal method. Quintessence Int 2003; 34(4):269-71.

Inglehart MR, Peters MC, Flamenbaum MH, Eboda NN, Feigal RJ. Chemomechanical caries removal in children: An operator's and pediatric patients' responses. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138(1):47-55. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0020.

Bijle MN, Patil S, Mumkekar SS, Arora N, Bhalla M, Murali KV. Awareness of dental surgeons in Pune and Mumbai, India, regarding chemomechanical caries removal system. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14(1):96-9.

Scrabeck J, List GM. The status of a chemomechanical caries removal system in dental education. Oper Dent 1989; 14(1):8-11.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4034/PBOCI.2018.181.21