| No. | Author-Year | Subjects | Type of Teeth | Rotary or Mechanical method | CarisolvTM | Other Measurements | Reason for non-inclusion in meta-analysis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of Caries (N) | No. of Patients | Age range (y) (Mean ± SD) |
N | Time (m) (Mean ± SD) |
N | Time (m) (Mean ± SD) |
Measure | Technique | Mech. method | CarisolvTM | ||||
| 1 | Zinck-1988a (Caridex) |
114 | 57 | NA | Previously restored with secondary decay | 57 | (-)3.29 ± 0.65 | 57 | 3.03 ± 0.90 | Anesthesia needed | 21/57 (37%) | 12/57 (21%) | Older Caridex method Restored teeth removal Absolute time values not reported |
|
| 2 | * Ericson-1999 | 127 | 137 | 3-85 (35 ± 21) |
Mix of 4 types of teeth | 19 | 4.4 ± 2.2 | 106 | 10.4 ± 6.1 | Anesthesia needed | 9/20 (45%) | 3/107 (2.8%) | - | |
| Degree of pain | Patient survey | 1/11 'No pain' 9/11 ‘some pain’ |
58/104 'No pain' 44/104 ‘some pain |
|||||||||||
| 3 | * Fure-2000 | 60 | 38 | Primary root caries | 26 | 4.5 ± 2.0 | 34 | 5.9 ± 2.2 | Anesthesia needed | 6/26 (23%) | 4/34 (12%) | - | ||
| 4 | Maragakis-2001 | 32 | 16 | 7-9 (7.7 ± 0.7) |
Primary molars | 16 | 0.2 ± 0.05 | 16 | 6.85 ± 2.61 | Anesthesia needed | Patient survey | 16/16 (100%) | 0/16 (0%) | Method of measuring time for removal of caries is different |
| Patient preference | Patient survey | 11/16 (68%) | 5/16 (31%) | |||||||||||
| 5 | Nadanovsky-2001 | 132 | 66 | 6-44 | Permanent teeth | 66 | 8.6 ± 3.8 | 66 | 9.2 ± 3.8 | Anesthesia needed | 5/66 (8%) | 2/66 (3%) | Non-rotary method used, conventional spoon excavator method | |
| Pain perception | Patient survey | 43/66 (65%) ‘some pain’ |
21/66 (32%) ‘some pain’ |
|||||||||||
| 6 | Chaussain-Miller-2003 | 120 | 96 | 10-81 (35.9 ± 17.7) |
94 | 11.1 ± 9.51 | Anesthesia needed | 30/94 (32%) | Not a comparative study | |||||
| Pain perception | Patient survey | 68.3% ‘No pain’ | ||||||||||||
| 7 | * Kakaboura-2003 | 90 | 45 | 18-55 | 45 | 6.8 ± 2.8 | 45 | 12.2 ± 4.1 | Anesthesia needed | 40% | 8% | - | ||
| Patient preference | Patient survey | 12% | 88% | |||||||||||
| 8 | * Rafique-2003 | 44 | 22 | 13-75 | Contra lateral teeth | 22 | 6.3 ± 1.3 | 22 | 5.4 ± 2.4 | Anesthesia needed | 100% | 0% | - | |
| Patient acceptance | Patient survey | 0% | 100% | |||||||||||
| 9 | * Kavvadia-2004 | 92 | 31 | 2-9 (4.2 ± 1) |
Primary teeth | 27 | 2.8 ± 1.9 | 65 | 8.1 ± 5.3 | Anesthesia needed | Class V patient survey | 4/17 (24%) | 1/43 (2%)11 | - |
| 10 |
Fure-2004 |
202 | 170 | 19-85 | 104 98 | 6.7 ± 4.1 7.6 ± 4.2 |
Patient preference | Patient survey | 19% | 81% | Comparison of two different gels (Carisolv method) | |||
| 11 | * Balciuniene-2005j | 35 | 30 | 2.5-13 | Deciduous & Permanent | 30 | 5.9± 4.75 (1-20) |
30 | 10.5± 4.25 (3-20) |
Anesthesia needed | 9/29 (31%) | 1/30 (3.3%) | - | |
| Pain perception | Patient survey | 8/29 ‘No pain’ 15/29 ‘some pain’ |
14/30 ‘No pain’ 7/30 ‘some pain’ |
|||||||||||
| 12 | *Bergmann-2005 | 92 | 46 | 4-11 (8) |
Maxille /Mandibular molars (deciduous) | 46 | 3.3 ± 2.3 | 46 | 6.7 ± 2.9 | Pain perception | Patient survey | 18/46 ‘No pain’ 17/46 ‘some pain’ |
26/46 ‘No pain’ 17/46 ‘some pain’ |
- |
| Patient preference | Patient interview | 0% | 65% | |||||||||||
| 13 | * Peters-2006 | 50 | 6-11 (8.1) |
24 | 1.34 ± 1.4 | 26 | 8.06 ± 3.13 | Anesthesia needed | 6/26 (23%) | - | ||||
| Pain reported | 28% ‘some pain’ | |||||||||||||
| 14 | * Lozano-Chourio-2006 | 80 | 40 | 7-9 (7.7 ± 0.7) |
Primary Molars | 40 | 2.47 ± 1.83 | 40 | 7.51 ± 2.10 | Anesthesia needed | 2/40 (5%) | 0/40 (0%) | - | |
| Pain Perception | Patient survey | 24/40 ‘No pain’ 16/40 ‘some pain’ |
33/40 ‘No pain’ 7/40 ‘some pain’ |
|||||||||||
| Patient preference | 11/38 (29%) | 27/38 (71%) | ||||||||||||
| 15 | Magalhaes-2006,j | 30 | Molars | 30 | 3.61 ± 1.17 | 30 | 6.42 ± 2.62 | Knoop Hardness (KHN) | Micro-hardness Tester | Lower KHN at all distances | Non-rotary, hand excavation method | |||
| 16 | * Pandit-2007 | 150 | 75 | 6-9 | Deciduous teeth | 50 | 4.28 ± 1.67 | 50 | 8.9 ± 3.78 | Pain (Mean ± SD) | VAS | 4.24 ± 1.25 | 2.18 ± 1.12 | - |
| Pain (Mean ± SD) | VPS | 1.44 ± 0.91 | 0.08 ± 0.27 | |||||||||||
| Efficacy (Mean±SD) | 0.38 ± 0.75 | 0.42 ± 0.76 | ||||||||||||
| 17 | * Inglehart-2007 | 50 | 8.16 | 24 | 1.34 ± 1.4 | 26 | 8.06 ± 3.13 | Perceived pain (0-4) | Operator Survey | 2.42/4 (60.5%) | 2.77/4 (69.25%) | - | ||
| Satisfaction (0-5) | 4.00/5 (80%) | 2.62 (52.4%) | ||||||||||||
| Pain experience (0-100) | Patient Survey | 61.12 (61.12%) | 69.71 (69.71%) | |||||||||||
| Satisfaction (0-4) | 3.96/4 (99%) | 3.46/4 (86.5%) | ||||||||||||
| 18 | * Hosein-2008 | 60 | 30 | Mandibular molars | 30 | 7.4 ± 3.21 | 30 | 12.19 ± 3.7 | Incomplete removal | Clinical assessment | 0/30 (0%) | 3/30 (10%) | - | |
| 19 | * Peric-2009 | 120 | 120 | 3-17 (8.7 ± 3.0) |
60 | 5.2 ± 2.8 | 60 | 11.2 ± 3.3 | Anesthesia needed | 36/60 (60%) | 7/60 (11.6%) | - | ||
| Pain perception | Patient Survey | 10/24 ‘No pain’ 10/24‘some pain’ |
46/53‘No pain’ 5/53‘some pain’ |
|||||||||||
| Incomplete removal | Clinical assessment | 5/60 (8.3%) | ||||||||||||
| Patient satisfaction | Patient Survey | 28/60 (47%) | 51/60 (85%) | |||||||||||
| 20 | Sanjeet-2011 | 80 | 40 | 4-8 | Primary molars | 40 | 2.08 ± 0.38 | 40 | 5.48 ± 0.75 | Pain perception | Wong Baker Faces Pain Scale | 6.65 ± 1.89 | 1.525 ± 1.36 | Non-Carisolv, Papacarie method |
| Mean reduction in viable bacterialcount | Colony count | 87.94% | 81.12% | |||||||||||
| 21 | Anegundi-2012 | 60 | 30 | 4-9 | Primary molars | 30 | 4.68 | 30 | 17.96 | Pain perception | Patient Survey | 50% ‘No pain’ 46.7% ‘some pain’ |
86.7% ‘No pain’ 10% ‘some pain’ |
Non-Carisolv, Papacarie method |
| Patient preference | Patient Survey | 36.7% | 60% | |||||||||||
| Mean bacterial count | Colony count | 90.33 | 115.5 | |||||||||||
| 22 | * Bohari-2012 | 120 | 5-9 | 30 | 3.45 ± 0.37 | 30 | 7.91 ± 0.72 | Pain perception | FLACC Scale | 2.93 ± 1.74 | 1.13 ± 1.25 | - | ||
| Complete removal (%) | DIAGNODENT pen | 92.9 ± 9.2 | 87.7 ± 6.4 | |||||||||||
| 23 | Matsumoto-2012 | 40 | 20 | 5-8 | Deciduous molars | 20 | 1.73 ± 1.3 | 20 | 2.75 ± 0.8 | Pain perception | 10/20 ‘No pain’ 10 ‘some pain’ | 9/20 ‘No Pain’ 11 ‘some pain’ | Non-Carisolv, Papacarie method | |
| 24 | * Goomer-2013 | 150 | 80 | 6-10 | Primary molars | 50 | 3.37 ± 1.1 | 50 | 14.17 ± 2.03 | Pain (Mean ± SD) | VAS | 77.20 ± 19.8 | 20.40 ± 12.28 | - |
| Pain (Mean ± SD) | VPS | 2.72 ± 0.3 | 0.82 ± 0.83 | |||||||||||
| Efficacy (removal) | Clinical assessment | 0.48 ± 0.3 | 1.2 ± 0.83 | |||||||||||
| 25 | * Hamama-2013 | 32 | Molars | 8 | 4.14 ± 0.32 | 8 | 6.46 ± 1.57 | Vickers Hardness, 75mm | 79.16 ± 5.7 | 19.01 ± 2.5 | - | |||
| 26 | Motta-2013 | 40 | 20 | 4-7 | Primary teeth | 20 | 20 | Pain perception (Face scale) | 13/20 no pain 7 some pain | 18/20 no pain 2 mild pain | Non-Carisolv, Papacarie method | |||