In vitro comparison of four dentine excavation methods in permanent teeth

Address for correspondence:\ud Kalina Peycheva, MD; \ud Department Conservative Dentistry,\ud Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical; University – Sofia\ud 1 Georgi Sofiyski St.; \ud Sofia, Bulgaria; \ud e-mail: kelybg@yahoo.comSummary. The modern concept of minimal invasive technique inquires to keep\ud maximum healthy structure and demineralized dentine during excavation. The study\ud was primarily aimed at comparing the effectiveness of round steel burs and polymer\ud burs (Smart burs II, USA) and evaluating the abilities of different methods to control\ud the dentin excavation, using the visual-tactile method with mirror and probe as a clinical method on one hand, and modern devices based on light-induced fluorescence\ud such as SoproLife (Acteon, France) in “treatment mode”, chemical substances (caries\ud indicators) and self-limiting polymer burs (Smart burs II) for paraclinical evaluation\ud on the other. Materials and methods: Forty extracted, non-devitalized teeth with initial\ud carious lesions were divided into 4 groups according to the method of controlling the\ud level of excavation: 1st group – visual-tactile (VT) control, 2nd group – control by\ud means of caries indicator, 3rd group – control with SoproLife, and 4th group – control with polymer burs. All groups were clinically followed-up with mirror and probe (VT) and paraclinically with SoproLife (Acte on, France). Results and conclusions: The\ud steel burs removed the carious mass more efficiently than the polymer ones, but a\ud tendency for over excavation and danger of removing healthy dentine was observed.\ud Polymer burs surely preserved healthy dentine, but were risky in removing infected\ud dentine. The most accurate and sparing method was SoproLife, followed by caries\ud indicator, polymer burs and visual examination as the least accurate