Efficacy and Tolerance of Papain Gel with Conventional Drilling Method: A Clinico-Microbiological Study

Conventional methods of caries removal are commonly associated with pain, fear and discomfort. Chemomechanical methods were introduced to instill a positive dental attitude. Agents like GK101, Caridex, Carisolv did not prove effective alternatives owing to their high cost, need of special instruments and taste of chlorine. A new chemomechanical agent, Papacarie®, has been introduced to overcome these deficiencies.Objective:This study was aimed to compare the effectiveness and tolerance of Papacárie® with the conventional method. Method:25 children with at least two primary teeth with broad cavitated occlusal or cervical lesion were selected. One carious tooth from each patient was randomly treated with each of Papacarie® and conventional drilling method, one after the other. Time taken for caries excavation, child’s pain perception, change in anxiety levels, microbial flora and child’s preference of treatment were recorded separately for both the methods. Result:Although the mean time taken for caries removal by the Papacarie® method was slightly longer (P>0.05) but it led to reduction in pain and anxiety (p<0.05). The viable bacterial counts were significantly reduced by either of the two methods (P <0·0001). More patients preferred Papacarie® over conventional method of treatment (P<0.05). Conclusion: Papacárie® method seems to be a better alternative to conventional method of caries removal.

Caries, Papacarie®, Chemomechanical caries removal, Conventional method

1. Berggren U, Meynert G. Dental fear and avoidance: causes, symptoms and consequences. J Am Dent Assoc 108:247-51, 1984.

2. Banerjee A, Watson T, Kidd E. Dentin caries excavation:a review of current clinical techniques. Br Dent J 188:476-82, 2000.

3. Beeley J, Yip H, Stevenson A. Chemo-chemical caries removal- a review of the techniques and latest developments. British Dental Journal 188(8):427-30, 2000.

4. Ericson D, Zimmerman M, Raber H, Gotrick B, Bornstein R. Clinical evaluation of efficacy and safety of a new method for chemomechanical removal of caries. Caries Res 33:171-77, 1999.

5. Subramaniam P, Babu KL, Neeraja G. Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal (Carisolv) with that of conventional drilling in reducing cariogenic flora. J Clin Pediatr Dent 32(3):215-9, 2008.

6. Azrak B, Callaway A, Grundheber A, Stender E, Willershausen B. Comparison of the efficacy of chemomechanical caries removal (Carisolv) with that of conventional excavation in reducing the cariogenic flora. Int J Paediatr Dent14(3):182–91, 2004.

7. Lager A, Thornqvist E, Ericson D. Cultivatable bacteria in dentine after caries excavation using rose-bur or Carisolv. Caries Res 37:206-11, 2003.

8. Maragakis G, Hahn P, Hellwig E. Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal in primary molars and its acceptance by patients. Caries Res 35(3):205-10, 2001.

9. Bussadori SK, Castro LC, Galvao AC. Papain gel: a new chemomechanical caries removal agent. J Clin Pediatr Dent 30(2):115-9, 2005.

10. Martins MD, Fernandes KP, Motta LJ, Santos EM, Pavesi VC, Bussadori SK. Biocompatibility analysis of chemomechanical caries removal material Papacarie on cultured fibroblasts and subcutaneous tissue. J Dent Child (Chic) 76(2):123-9, 2009.

11. Bussadori SK GC, Hermida Bruno ML, Ram D. Chemomechanical removal of caries in an adolescent patient using a papain gel: case report. J Clin Pediatr Dent 32(3):177-80, 2008.

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

13. 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 28(2):73-7, 2010.

14. Bussadori SK, Guedes CC, Bachiega JC, Santis TO, Motta LJ. Clinical and radiographic study of chemical-mechanical removal of caries using Papacárie: 24-month follow up. J Clin Pediatr Dent 35(3):251-4, 2011.

15. Singh S, Jawa D, Jaidka S, Somani R. Comparative clinical evaluation of chemomechanical caries removal agent Papacarie® with conventional method among rural population in India - in vivo study. Braz J Oral Sci 10(3):193-98, 2011.

16. Garra, G., Singer, A. J., Taira, B. R., Chohan, J., Cardoz, H., Chisena, E. and Thode, H. C. Validation of the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale in Pediatric Emergency Department Patients. Academic Emergency Medicine, 17: 50–54, 2010.

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

18. Ansari G, Beeley J, Fung D. Chemomechanical caries removal in primary teeth in a group of anxious children. J Oral Rehabil 30(8):773-79, 2003.

19. Yelderman M, William N. Evaluation of pulse oximetry. Eur J Anesthesiology 59:349-52, 1983.

20. Chourio MAL, Zambrano O, Gonzalez H, Quero M. Clinical randomized controlled trial of chemomechanical caries removal (CarisolvTM). Int J Pediatr Dent 16(3):161-67, 2006.

21. Inglehart M, Peters M, Flamenbaum M, Eboda N, Feigal R. Chemomechanical caries removal in children: An operator’s and pediatric patients’ responses. J Am Dent Assoc 138(1):47-55, 2007.

22. Silva L, Motta L, Reda S, Bussadori S. Papacarie -um novo sistema para a remocao quimica e mechanica do tecido cariado – relato de caso clinico. Rev Paul Odontol 26(6):4-8, 2004.

23. Anusavice KJ, Kincheloe JE. Comparison of pain associated with mechanical and chemomechanical removal of caries. J Dent Res66(11):1680-3, 1987.