الفهرس 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 107 |  |  |
| | | from | 107 | | |
Abstract
There are a number of techniques available for caries removal. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and time needed for caries removal using the polymer bur in comparison with the conventional carbide bur.
The present study consisted of two parts a clinical trial and an in vitro study. The clinical trial included twenty three children of age ranging between 4-8 years with mean age 5.39 years. Children involved in the clinical trial had thirty bilateral carious primary canines. One carious canine was considered test while its contralateral was considered control, thus a split mouth clinical trial was conducted including two test groups (n=30). group I: caries was removed using the polymer bur (Smartburs II), group II: caries was removed using the conventional carbide bur. The efficacy of caries removal was evaluated by “tug-back” sensation and time needed for complete caries removal was evaluated. Z350 composite was used as a filling material, according to the manufacturer’s instructions for cavity restoration. The in-vitro study used the SEM to assess the topographic features of dentin after caries removal following the use of polymer bur (Smartburs II) and conventional carbide bur.
The comparison of caries removal efficiency between Smartburs II and carbide bur showed that the Smartburs II completely removed caries in 11 cases accounting for 36.6% and incompletely removed caries in 19 cases accounting for 63.4%. While the carbide bur completely removed caries in 28 cases accounting for 93.3% and incompletely removed caries in 2 cases accounting for 6.7%. Caries removal time ranged between 192 seconds to 380 seconds for Smartburs II, while caries removal time ranged between 198 seconds to 361 seconds for carbide bur (control group). The mean ± SD caries removal time varied from 271.16 ± 26.78 for Smartburs II and 235.16 ± 27.37 for carbide bur. The results of both caries removal efficiency and caries removal time were significantly different.
The in vitro study showed different topographic characteristics between the studied groups. The dentin surface following the Smartburs ΙΙ caries removal showed irregular globular surface, almost completely covered by smear layer. While the dentin surface following conventional bur caries removal showed an irregular porous surface with almost complete removal of the smear layer.
It was concluded that the Smartburs II had significantly lower caries removal efficiency and longer caries removal time, when compared to conventional carbide bur.