Caries Removal by Chemomechanical (Carisolv™) vs. Rotary Drill: A Systematic Review

Viral P. Maru*, B.S. Shakuntala, C. Nagarathna
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Rajarajeswari Dental College & Hospital, Mysore Road, Kumbalgodu, Bangalore 560 074 India

Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 516
Abstract HTML Views: 126
PDF Downloads: 66
Total Views/Downloads: 708
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 272
Abstract HTML Views: 100
PDF Downloads: 60
Total Views/Downloads: 432

Creative Commons License
© Maru et al. ; Licensee Bentham Open.

open-access license: This is an open access articles licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (, which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the work is properly cited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Rajarajeswari Dental College & Hospital, Mysore Road, Kumbalgodu, Bangalore 560 074, India; Tel: 09867220417; E-mail:


Background:Chemomechanical caries removal is an effective alternative to the traditional rotary drilling method. The advantages of chemomechanical techniques in terms of the need for anesthesia, pain perception and patient preference are systematically reviewed and a meta-analysis of the time required for caries removal is reported. Method: Randomized controlled studies of comparison of chemomechanical techniques with conventional rotary drill were selected from a systematic search of standard biomedical databases, including the PubMed and Cochrane clinical trials. Non-repeated search results were screened for relevance and risk of bias assessment, followed by methodology assessment. Statistical models were applied to the outcome parameters - time required, pain perception, need of anesthesia and patient preference - extracted from the studies. Results: Out of the 111 non-repeated search results, 26 studies receiving a low bias score were selected for the review, and 16 randomized clinical trials of rotary and Carisolv techniques were considered for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis by fixed effect as well as random effect models indicate that Carisolv takes more time (3.65 ± 0.05 and 4.09 ± 0.29 min) than rotary drill (8.65 ± 0.09 and 8.97 ± 0.66 min) method. Advantages of reduced pain (14.67 for Carisolv vs. 6.76 for rotary drill), need for anesthesia (1.59% vs. 10.52%) outweigh the longer time requirement and make it the preferred (18.68% vs. 4.69%) method. Conclusion: Chemomechanical techniques stand out as a minimally invasive and preferred method based on the meta-analyses. Evaluation of pain experienced using robust methods is needed to strengthen the evidence for their use.

Keywords: Caries removal, carisolv, chemomechanical, dental caries, pain perception, rotary drill.