• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

BRIX3000、CARIE CARE和SMART车针在龋洞预备中的比较评估：一项研究。

Comparative evaluation of BRIX3000, CARIE CARE, and SMART BURS in caries excavation: An study.

作者信息

Inamdar Mahenaz Salam, Chole Dayanand G, Bakle Shrinivas S, Gandhi Neha P, Hatte Nikhil R, Rao Mahesh P

机构信息

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Dental College, Solapur, Maharashtra, India.

出版信息

J Conserv Dent. 2020 Mar-Apr;23(2):163-168. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_269_20. Epub 2020 Nov 5.

DOI:10.4103/JCD.JCD_269_20
PMID:33384489
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7720760/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Chemomechanical caries removal has been a new leaf for caries excavation in this ultraconservative era of dentistry. BRIX3000 & Carie Care are papain based gel formulations while Smart Burs are polymer burs with self limiting ability.

AIM

To compare & evaluate the caries excavation efficacy of BRIX3000, Carie Care & Smart burs.

MATERIALS & METHODS: 45 patients with wide class 1 carious lesions were selected and equally divided into 3 groups: BRIX 3000, Carie Care & Smart Burs. Caries excavation was performed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions in each group & evaluation for reduction in bacterial count & mean working time was done.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data was analysed by One way ANOVA, Paired -Test & Tukey's Post Hoc test.

RESULTS

The highest reduction in bacterial count was achieved by BRIX3000(156.93 × 10) followed by Smart Burs(139.07× 10)& Carie Care(135.80×10) with p>0.5. Mean working time in minutes for excavation was: BRIX3000(13.66), Carie Care(18.30) &Smart Burs(20.60) with p< 0.5.

CONCLUSION

All the techniques reduced bacterial count potentially. BRIX 3000 proves the most effective among three.

摘要

背景

在牙科这个极端保守的时代，化学机械去龋已成为龋洞挖掘的新方法。BRIX3000和Carie Care是以木瓜蛋白酶为基础的凝胶制剂，而智能车针是具有自限能力的聚合物车针。

目的

比较和评估BRIX3000、Carie Care和智能车针的去龋效果。

材料与方法

选取45例患有广泛1类龋损的患者，平均分为3组：BRIX 3000组、Carie Care组和智能车针组。每组按照制造商的说明进行龋洞挖掘，并对细菌数量减少情况和平均工作时间进行评估。

统计分析

数据采用单因素方差分析、配对检验和Tukey事后检验进行分析。

结果

BRIX3000组细菌数量减少最多（156.93×10），其次是智能车针组（139.07×10）和Carie Care组（135.80×10），p>0.5。挖掘的平均工作时间（分钟）为：BRIX3000组（13.66）、Carie Care组（18.30）和智能车针组（20.60），p<0.5。

结论

所有技术都能有效减少细菌数量。BRIX 3000在三者中证明是最有效的。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/dbe2f35b150d/JCD-23-163-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/20a87357abc0/JCD-23-163-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/71c74a0c16db/JCD-23-163-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/983f5f4cf0df/JCD-23-163-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/b122bbd51727/JCD-23-163-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/48c028da96b6/JCD-23-163-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/dbe2f35b150d/JCD-23-163-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/20a87357abc0/JCD-23-163-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/71c74a0c16db/JCD-23-163-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/983f5f4cf0df/JCD-23-163-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/b122bbd51727/JCD-23-163-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/48c028da96b6/JCD-23-163-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bbac/7720760/dbe2f35b150d/JCD-23-163-g006.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparative evaluation of BRIX3000, CARIE CARE, and SMART BURS in caries excavation: An study.BRIX3000、CARIE CARE和SMART车针在龋洞预备中的比较评估：一项研究。
J Conserv Dent. 2020 Mar-Apr;23(2):163-168. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_269_20. Epub 2020 Nov 5.
2
Chemomechanical caries removal method versus mechanical caries removal methods in clinical and community-based setting: A comparative in vivo study.临床及社区环境下化学机械去龋法与机械去龋法的比较：一项体内对照研究
Eur J Dent. 2016 Jul-Sep;10(3):386-391. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.184151.
3
Comparison of efficacy of caries removal using polymer bur and chemomechanical caries removal agent: A clinical and microbiological assessment - An study.使用聚合物车针与化学机械去龋剂去除龋坏组织的疗效比较：一项临床和微生物学评估——一项研究。
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2017 Jan-Mar;35(1):6-13. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.199232.
4
Efficacy of Caries Removal by Carie-Care and Erbium-doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet Laser in Primary Molars: A Scanning Electron Microscope Study.使用Carie-Care和掺铒钇铝石榴石激光去除乳牙龋齿的疗效：一项扫描电子显微镜研究
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018 Jul-Aug;11(4):323-329. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1533. Epub 2018 Aug 1.
5
Volumetric analysis after caries excavation with caries detecting dyes and chemomechanical caries removal agents using 3D scanner-a randomised clinical trial.使用 3D 扫描仪评估龋病探测染料和化学机械去龋剂去腐后的容积变化：一项随机临床试验。
BMC Oral Health. 2024 Feb 1;24(1):164. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-03907-5.
6
Effectiveness of chemomechanical caries removal agents Papacarie(®) and Carie-Care™ in primary molars: An in vitro study.化学机械去龋剂Papacarie（®）和Carie-Care™在乳磨牙中的有效性：一项体外研究。
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016 Apr;6(Suppl 1):S17-22. doi: 10.4103/2231-0762.181162.
7
Comparative Microbiological Evaluation after Caries Removal by Various Burs.不同车针去除龋坏组织后的微生物学比较评估
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019 Nov-Dec;12(6):524-527. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1678.
8
Comparative Evaluation of Clinical and Microbiological Assessment of Caries Excavation Using Conventional, Smart Bur, Chemomechanical Method and ErCr: YSGG Laser.使用传统车针、智能车针、化学机械法和ErCr:YSGG激光进行龋洞预备的临床和微生物学评估的比较评价
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024 Jul;16(Suppl 3):S2830-S2832. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_315_24. Epub 2024 Jul 31.
9
Comparative Evaluation of the Efficiency of Polymer Bur, Cera Bur, and Tungsten Carbide Bur in Dentin Caries Excavation of Mandibular Primary Molars: An Study.聚合物车针、陶瓷车针和碳化钨车针在下颌第一乳磨牙龋洞预备效率的比较评价：一项研究。
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024 Apr;16(Suppl 2):S1442-S1446. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_842_23. Epub 2024 Apr 16.
10
Comparison of dentin caries excavation with polymer and conventional tungsten carbide burs.使用聚合物车针与传统碳化钨车针进行牙本质龋洞预备的比较。
Quintessence Int. 2007 Jul-Aug;38(7):565-9.

引用本文的文献

1
Chemomechanical Caries Removal with Enzymatic Technology: A Comparative Study.酶技术用于化学机械性龋病去除的比较研究
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2025 Mar;18(3):245-250. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3067. Epub 2025 Apr 19.
2
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Different Caries Removal Methods in Primary Teeth With Micro-Computed Tomography and Scanning Electron Microscopy-Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy of X-Ray.运用微计算机断层扫描以及扫描电子显微镜-能量色散X射线光谱法评估不同龋病去除方法对乳牙的有效性。
Microsc Res Tech. 2025 Sep;88(9):2482-2491. doi: 10.1002/jemt.24868. Epub 2025 Apr 13.
3
Comparing efficacies of various papain-based enzyme agents and 2.4% sodium hypochlorite gel in chemomechanical caries removal: a randomized controlled trial.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparing the efficacies of two chemo-mechanical caries removal agents (2.25% sodium hypochlorite gel and brix 3000), in caries removal and patient cooperation: A randomized controlled clinical trial.比较两种化学机械去龋剂（2.25%次氯酸钠凝胶和 brix3000）在去龋和患者合作方面的疗效：一项随机对照临床试验。
J Dent. 2020 Feb;93:103280. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103280. Epub 2020 Jan 22.
2
Comparison of efficacy of caries removal using polymer bur and chemomechanical caries removal agent: A clinical and microbiological assessment - An study.使用聚合物车针与化学机械去龋剂去除龋坏组织的疗效比较：一项临床和微生物学评估——一项研究。
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2017 Jan-Mar;35(1):6-13. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.199232.
3
比较各种基于木瓜蛋白酶的酶制剂与2.4%次氯酸钠凝胶在化学机械去龋中的疗效：一项随机对照试验。
BDJ Open. 2024 Sep 4;10(1):70. doi: 10.1038/s41405-024-00258-9.
4
Antimicrobial Efficacy of Chemomechanical Carie Removal Agents-A Systematic Integrative Review.化学机械去龋剂的抗菌效果——一项系统综合评价
Biomedicines. 2024 Aug 2;12(8):1735. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines12081735.
5
Chemomechanical caries removal methods: A literature review.化学机械去龋方法：文献综述
Saudi Dent J. 2023 Mar;35(3):233-243. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.01.010. Epub 2023 Feb 6.
Chemomechanical caries removal method versus mechanical caries removal methods in clinical and community-based setting: A comparative in vivo study.
临床及社区环境下化学机械去龋法与机械去龋法的比较：一项体内对照研究
Eur J Dent. 2016 Jul-Sep;10(3):386-391. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.184151.
4
A comparative in vitro efficacy of conventional rotatory and chemomechanical caries removal: Influence on cariogenic flora, microhardness, and residual composition.传统旋转式与化学机械法龋坏组织去除术的体外疗效比较：对致龋菌丛、显微硬度及残余成分的影响。
J Conserv Dent. 2014 Nov;17(6):536-40. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.144588.
5
Effect of two different chemomechanical caries removal agents on dentin microhardness: An in vitro study.两种不同化学机械去龋剂对牙本质微硬度的影响：一项体外研究。
J Conserv Dent. 2013 Sep;16(5):429-33. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.117520.
6
A comparative microbiological study to assess caries excavation by conventional rotary method and a chemo-mechanical method.一项比较微生物学研究，旨在评估传统旋转法和化学机械法进行龋洞预备的情况。
Contemp Clin Dent. 2012 Oct;3(4):388-92. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.107420.
7
In vivo comparison of reduction in bacterial count after caries excavation with 3 different techniques.采用3种不同技术进行龋洞预备后细菌数量减少情况的体内比较。
J Dent Child (Chic). 2011 Jan-Apr;78(1):31-5.
8
Current concepts and techniques for caries excavation and adhesion to residual dentin.龋坏清除和与剩余牙本质黏附的当前概念和技术。
J Adhes Dent. 2011 Feb;13(1):7-22. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a18443.
9
Chemical analysis of dentin surfaces after Carisolv treatment.Carisolv治疗后牙本质表面的化学分析。
J Conserv Dent. 2009 Jul;12(3):118-22. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.57636.
10
Micro-CT based quantitative evaluation of caries excavation.基于微 CT 的龋齿挖除定量评估。
Dent Mater. 2010 Jun;26(6):579-88. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.01.012. Epub 2010 Mar 29.