The aim of this study was to investigate whether caries removal with air-abrasion/Carisolv gel is an acceptable and viable alternative in the treatment of dental patients. Twenty-two patients were treated with conventional methods (local anaesthetic injection/drill) followed by alternative treatment (air-abrasion and Carisolv gel) in a general practice setting, by the same operator. The participants' pre-operative anxiety levels were measured using the Modified Dental Anxiety Scale. Their postoperative levels of anxiety/dislike for aspects of both conventional and alternative treatments were assessed using a visual analogue scale. Levels of anxiety/dislike for both treatments were compared and statistically analysed. Results showed 100% of subjects were concerned about several aspects of conventional treatment including pain/discomfort on injection, taste of anaesthetic, length of time tissues remained numb, noise of the drill, its sensory vibrations and water coolant. However, 75% of the study population were happy with all aspects of the air-abrasion technique including dust, pain/discomfort and vibrations produced. Overall, the study population found Carisolv gel to be an acceptable alternative method of caries removal in terms of time taken, pain/discomfort and taste. There were statistically significant differences between patients' perceptions of various aspects of the two treatment methods. All participants found the alternative treatment to be pain-free, quicker and overall more acceptable compared with conventional treatment. The conclusion drawn from the study was that air-abrasion/Carisolv gel treatment was a well-accepted and viable alternative to conventional local anaesthetic injection and drill for dental patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rafique et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: