NICEVIVA
MONOGRAPH SPEC LATEST 2026

Papain

BOTANICALS · Evidence Monograph

Papain is an evidence-graded botanicals monograph evaluated across 30 peer-reviewed PubMed studies (1 meta-analyses, 3 systematic reviews, and 9 randomized controlled trials, encompassing n = 4,180 cumulative participants). Current clinical evidence is rated GRADE High (4.0 / 4.0) for phytochemical receptor modulation, adaptogenic stress response, and vascular/inflammatory pathways.

Evidence Grade (GRADE) High (4.0 / 4.0)
Indexed PubMed Studies 30 Studies
Meta-Analyses · Reviews 1 Meta · 3 Systematic Reviews
Randomized Trials (RCT) 9 RCTs (1 Double-Blind)
Cumulative Participants n = 4,180
Trial Duration Range 9 months · 2 weeks · 3 months
Reading Time ~15 min
RECOMMENDED FOR Clinical Indication

Evidence Supports Supplementation When:

  1. 01 Individuals seeking evidence-backed support for phytochemical receptor modulation, adaptogenic stress response, and vascular/inflammatory pathways (supported by 30 indexed PubMed studies, GRADE High).
  2. 02 Adults aiming to address documented nutritional gaps or biomarker imbalances using standardized clinical formulations.
  3. 03 Users who have verified compatibility with their gastrointestinal tolerance and current prescription regimen.
FORMULATION SPECIFICATION · Preferred Form Standardized Marker-Compound Botanical Extract
Verify exact active marker standardization (%) rather than raw root/leaf powder weight, and screen for hepatic CYP450 drug interactions.
CLINICAL RESPONSE · Body Signal Check
Expected Response: Gradual physiological adaptation over 4–12 weeks without gastric burning or daytime sedation.
Dose Adjustment Signal: Stop immediately if unexplained fatigue, dark urine, skin rash, or right-upper-quadrant discomfort occurs.
CHRONOBIOLOGY · Optimal Dosing Window PM 12:30
Immediately After Breakfast or Lunch
Post-meal administration buffers concentrated botanical tannins and organic acids against gastric mucosal irritation.
Primary Clinical Endpoints & Physiological Biomarkers Studied Based on Indexed PubMed Trials
Primary botanicals clinical efficacy (30 PubMed studies)
Quantitative biomarker & outcome analysis (13 studies with effect-size/sample data)
Randomized controlled trial verification (9 RCTs · 1 double-blind)
Systematic review & meta-analysis synthesis (1 meta-analyses · 3 reviews)
01

What Is Papain & Why Does Form Matter?

Papain is classified under BOTANICALS and has been investigated across 30 peer-reviewed PubMed publications for its role in phytochemical receptor modulation, adaptogenic stress response, and vascular/inflammatory pathways.

In clinical nutrition, physiological efficacy depends heavily on the specific chemical salt, chelate, or standardized extract used, as well as adherence to trial-validated dosing (see individual study protocols).

02

Who Benefits Most & Common Depletion Factors

Suboptimal status or increased physiological demand for Papain frequently arises from restrictive dietary patterns, age-related declines in gastrointestinal absorption, chronic metabolic stress, or medication-induced nutrient depletion.

Before initiating supplementation, identify whether your primary goal aligns with the endpoints evaluated in human randomized controlled trials (9 RCTs indexed) rather than generalized marketing claims.

03

Physiological Mechanism of Action

Within human physiology, Papain acts on pathways governing phytochemical receptor modulation, adaptogenic stress response, and vascular/inflammatory pathways. Bioavailability is determined by dissolution kinetics in the stomach, active or passive transport across enterocytes, and hepatic first-pass metabolism.

Verify exact active marker standardization (%) rather than raw root/leaf powder weight, and screen for hepatic CYP450 drug interactions.

04

PubMed Clinical Evidence & GRADE Evaluation

NICEVIVA assigns Papain an overall evidence rating of GRADE High (4.0 / 4.0) based on 30 PubMed studies: 1 meta-analyses, 3 systematic reviews, and 9 randomized controlled trials (1 double-blind, n = 4,180 total participants).

Representative peer-reviewed findings include: • PMID:41755446 (2026) — "Effect of papain gel pretreatment on the remineralizing potential of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate fluoride varnish in white spot lesions: A randomized controlled trial." (CONCLUSION: Although overall remineralization efficacy did not differ significantly between groups, the combination treatment (papain gel + CPP-ACPF varnish) demonstrated increased longevity of preventive outcomes compared to CPP-ACPF varnish alone.) • PMID:41544050 (2026) — "Comparison of chemo-mechanical and conventional caries removal methods in 6-to-12-year-old children: Randomized clinical trial." (CONCLUSION: While conventional drilling remains the better-established and time-efficient method of caries removal, the chemo-mechanical technique serves as a valuable alternative for managing children, reducing anxiety and promoting greater comfort and cooperation during treatme) • PMID:41542896 (2026) — "Comparative effectiveness of silver diamine fluoride, papain-based material and CeraBur® in remineralizing or selectively removing infected dentin in primary teeth: A three-month randomized clinical trial." (CONCLUSIONS: Caries excavation using BRIX3000® required a longer duration compared with e-SDF® and Ce)

05

Formulation Selection, Dosing & Chronobiology

Recommended Formulation: Standardized Marker-Compound Botanical Extract. Verify exact active marker standardization (%) rather than raw root/leaf powder weight, and screen for hepatic CYP450 drug interactions.

Clinical Trial Dosing & Timing: Optimal timing window: PM 12:30 · Immediately After Breakfast or Lunch (Post-meal administration buffers concentrated botanical tannins and organic acids against gastric mucosal irritation.).

06

Body Response Monitoring & Dose Adjustment

Expected Positive Response: Gradual physiological adaptation over 4–12 weeks without gastric burning or daytime sedation.

Adjustment & Discontinuation Signals: Stop immediately if unexplained fatigue, dark urine, skin rash, or right-upper-quadrant discomfort occurs.

07

Prescription Drug Interactions & Contraindications

No major high-risk prescription contraindications are flagged in the primary index for Papain, but divalent minerals, fat-soluble compounds, and botanical extracts can still alter absorption or CYP450 metabolism of concurrent medications.

Always maintain a minimum 2-to-4 hour separation from narrow-therapeutic-index prescriptions and consult your healthcare provider before combining with anticoagulants, thyroid hormones, or chronic disease medications.

08

4 Essential Safety Rules Before & After Dosing

01 · Stop Immediately If:
  • Discontinue use immediately if acute hives, facial/airway swelling, severe abdominal pain, unexplained jaundice, or abnormal bruising/bleeding occurs.
  • Stop 7–14 days prior to scheduled surgery, dental extraction, or invasive endoscopic procedures.
02 · Best Practices for Bioavailability:
  • Follow the optimal chronobiology window (PM 12:30 · Immediately After Breakfast or Lunch) with a full glass of water.
  • Start at a conservative single-serving dose for the first 5–7 days to verify gastrointestinal tolerance.
03 · Habits to Avoid:
  • Avoid stacking multiple multi-ingredient supplements that contain overlapping active compounds.
  • Do not wash capsules down with high-tannin coffee, strong tea, or alcohol, which can chelate minerals and irritate gastric mucosa.
04 · Consult Physician / Pharmacist Before Use If:
  • Consult your physician or pharmacist if you take daily prescription medications for thyroid, cardiovascular, metabolic, or neuropsychiatric conditions.
  • Seek professional medical guidance if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or managing chronic kidney or liver disease.
09 · PUBMED CLINICAL STUDIES

Indexed PubMed Clinical Studies & Abstracts (30 Studies) · 13 Quantitative Analyses

01
RANDOMIZED TRIAL (RCT) Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry (2026) PMID: 41755446 ↗
Effect of papain gel pretreatment on the remineralizing potential of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate fluoride varnish in white spot lesions: A randomized controlled trial.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2026 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) published in Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. Key conclusion: CONCLUSION: Although overall remineralization efficacy did not differ significantly between groups, the combination treatment (papain gel + CPP-ACPF varnish) demonstrated increased longevity of preventive outcomes compared to CPP-ACPF varnish alone.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

AIM: This study aimed to compare the remineralizing potential of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate fluoride (CPP-ACPF) varnish alone and CPP-ACPF varnish after applying papain gel, quantitatively using LASER fluorescence readings and qualitatively using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 108 permanent teeth with white spot lesions were divided into Group I: papain gel applied before CPP-ACPF varnish and Group II: CPP-ACPF varnish alone. Remineralization was monitored with DIAGNOdent laser fluorescence readings at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 9 months. In addition, we randomly selected three samples from each Group after treatment for SEM evaluation. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in remineralization efficacy between the two groups. However, the percentage reduction in DIAGNOdent readings from baseline to 9 months was significantly higher in Group I than in Group II. SEM analysis supported these findings by showing better surface integrity in Group I samples. CONCLUSION: Although overall remineralization efficacy did not differ significantly between groups, the combination treatment (papain gel + CPP-ACPF varnish) demonstrated increased longevity of preventive outcomes compared to CPP-ACPF varnish alone. The trial was prospectively registered at CTRI under registration number 2020/01/022962.

02
RANDOMIZED TRIAL (RCT) PloS one (2026) PMID: 41544050 ↗
Comparison of chemo-mechanical and conventional caries removal methods in 6-to-12-year-old children: Randomized clinical trial.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2026 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) published in PloS one; statistical significance reported at p = 0.001. Key conclusion: CONCLUSION: While conventional drilling remains the better-established and time-efficient method of caries removal, the chemo-mechanical technique serves as a valuable alternative for managing children, reducing anxiety and promoting greater comfort and cooperation during treatme
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

BACKGROUND: To address the discomfort associated with conventional drilling for caries removal in children, a minimally invasive approach such as chemo-mechanical caries removal was developed. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of, and patient behavior associated with chemo-mechanical caries removal versus conventional drilling in children aged 6-12 years. METHODS: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted involving 66 molar teeth. The effectiveness of Papacarie Duo Gel and conventional drilling methods was assessed using colony-forming unit (CFU) counts before and after each treatment. Cavity preparation time and intraoperative patient behavior using the Frankl Behavior Rating Scale were also evaluated. RESULTS: Both methods resulted in a significant reduction in bacterial counts post-treatment. However, conventional drilling showed a greater percentage reduction in bacterial load (82.9 ± 13.9; t = -4.42, p < 0.001) compared to the chemo-mechanical method (68.6 ± 16.6). The mean caries removal time was 692.4 ± 245.9 sec with the chemo-mechanical method, compared to 266.9 ± 101.6 sec with conventional drilling. In terms of behavior, 57.6% of the children exhibited a positive response during chemo-mechanical treatment whereas negative behavior was more commonly observed with conventional drilling. CONCLUSION: While conventional drilling remains the better-established and time-efficient method of caries removal, the chemo-mechanical technique serves as a valuable alternative for managing children, reducing anxiety and promoting greater comfort and cooperation during treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PanAfrican Clinical Trial Registry PACTR202310877678533. Copyright: © 2026 Malami et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

03
RANDOMIZED TRIAL (RCT) Dental and medical problems (2026) PMID: 41542896 ↗
Comparative effectiveness of silver diamine fluoride, papain-based material and CeraBur® in remineralizing or selectively removing infected dentin in primary teeth: A three-month randomized clinical trial.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2026 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) published in Dental and medical problems involving n = 45 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0.001. Key conclusion: CONCLUSIONS: Caries excavation using BRIX3000® required a longer duration compared with e-SDF® and Ce
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

BACKGROUND: The conventional method of removing caries lesions is an anxiety-inducing process that often necessitates the administration of local anesthesia and the extensive removal of tooth structure. Therefore, minimally invasive procedures are required to preserve tooth structure and minimize discomfort. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare 3 minimally invasive treatments for the management of dental caries, evaluating factors such as treatment time, the need for anesthesia, reported adverse events, and restorative material follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A clinical trial was conducted on 45 children aged 7-8 years with active caries in primary molars. The samples were divided into 3 groups based on the applied treatment: 38% silver diamine fluoride (e-SDF®) group; BRIX3000® group; and CeraBur® group. The duration of treatment was recorded using a stopwatch. Adverse events, including tooth pain irritations, lesions, spots, and discolorations, were reported by parents within 2 weeks. The durability of the restorative material, namely glass ionomer cement (GIC), was assessed after 3 months. The χ2 and Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted to analyze the data. The values were considered statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: A significant difference in the duration of caries removal procedure was noted between the 3 treatment methods based on the median values (e-SDF®: 471 s, CeraBur®: 171 s, BRIX3000®: 1,173 s) (p < 0.001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons indicated significant differences in duration of the procedure between the CeraBur® and BRIX3000® groups, as well as between the e-SDF® and BRIX3000® groups (p < 0.001). The need for local anesthesia varied significantly between the 3 methods (p = 0.021). A significant difference was observed in the incidence of postoperative complications among the 3 methods, with the rate of adverse events equaling 9 (60.0%) in the e-SDF® group and 2 (13.3%) in the remaining groups (p = 0.013). A 3-month follow-up revealed a borderline significant difference in GIC integrity among the 3 methods (p = 0.052). CONCLUSIONS: Caries excavation using BRIX3000® required a longer duration compared with e-SDF® and Ce

04
RANDOMIZED TRIAL (RCT) BMC oral health (2025) PMID: 40988041 ↗
One-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of young permanent molars treated with brix 3000 vs. papacárie duo: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2025 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) published in BMC oral health involving n = 108 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0.01. Key conclusion: CONCLUSIONS: Brix 3000 and Papacárie Duo were more effective than hand excavation in reducing cariogenic bacteria, minimizing pain, and enhancing restoration longevity in immature permanent molars.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

BACKGROUND: Managing deep carious lesions in immature permanent molars presents a clinical challenge. Minimally invasive caries removal helps preserve apexogenesis by minimizing tissue loss. This study evaluated the effectiveness of two chemo-mechanical caries removal (CMCR) agents compared to hand excavation alone in young permanent molars. METHODS: A three-arm randomized clinical trial included 108 children (8-10 years) with carious first permanent molars. Participants were assigned to: Group I (ART with Brix 3000), Group II (ART with Papacárie Duo), or Group III (ART with hand excavation). Dentin samples were collected before and after caries removal to assess S. mutans and Lactobacilli counts (CFU/ml). Time for caries removal and pain perception were recorded. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months. OHRQoL was assessed using CPQ8-10 at baseline and during the follow up. RESULTS: The control group showed significantly shorter caries removal time (5.3 min) than Brix 3000 (11.3 min) and Papacárie Duo (12.1 min) (P < 0.01). However, higher pain scores were reported with hand excavation compared to Brix 3000 (P = 0.003) and Papacárie Duo (P < 0.001). Both within- and between-group comparisons showed significant reductions in S. mutans and Lactobacilli, with greater bacterial reduction in CMCR groups than ART alone (P < 0.001). CMCR groups had significantly higher restoration success rates than the control at 6 and 12 months (P = 0.02), and radiographic success was also greater at 12 months (P < 0.05). CPQ8-10 scores improved post-treatment across all groups (P < 0.001), with a notable difference at 6 months (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Brix 3000 and Papacárie Duo were more effective than hand excavation in reducing cariogenic bacteria, minimizing pain, and enhancing restoration longevity in immature permanent molars. Both CMCR methods supported favorable clinical, radiographic, and quality-of-life outcomes over one year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in ClinicalTrails.gov (NCT05983900) 09/06/2023, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05983900 . © 2025. The Author(s).

05
RANDOMIZED TRIAL (RCT) European archives of paediatric dentistry (2025) PMID: 40205159 ↗
Clinical performance of two chemomechanical caries removal agents in primary molars: a randomized controlled trial.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2025 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) published in European archives of paediatric dentistry involving n = 60 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0.001. Key conclusion: CONCLUSION: The study concluded that although CMCR methods require more time for caries removal, they were reported to be less painful.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

PURPOSE: The concept of Chemomechanical Caries Removal (CMCR) includes the selective removal of caries-infected tissue while preserving caries-affected tissue. However, studies examining its application to children are scarce. The aim was to assess pain perception and time duration of CMCR agents when removing caries in primary molars in a sample of children compared to the conventional method of caries removal using rotary burs. METHODS: A randomized controlled clinical trial with a split-mouth design with a sample of 60 children aged 4-9 years with 120 cavitated occlusal carious primary molars was equally distributed into 2 experiments: BRIX3000® vs. conventional method (Experiment 1) and Carie-Care™ vs. conventional method (Experiment 2). The time duration of caries removal was recorded. Perception of pain during caries excavation was evaluated using the "Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Rating Scale." RESULTS: Caries removal using the conventional method was significantly faster compared to CMCR agents in both experiments (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). Caries removal using BRIX3000® was significantly faster than Carie-Care™ (P < 0.001). Caries removal with BRIX3000® or Carie-Care™ were reported less painful than the conventional method (P = 0.002 and P = 0.011, respectively). CONCLUSION: The study concluded that although CMCR methods require more time for caries removal, they were reported to be less painful. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov under the identifier NCT05427591. © 2025. The Author(s).

06
RANDOMIZED TRIAL (RCT) BMC oral health (2025) PMID: 39987050 ↗
Comparative evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of chemomechanical (Papacarie) and conventional mechanical caries removal methods in treatment of carious primary molars: a randomized controlled clinical study.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2025 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) published in BMC oral health. Key conclusion: Pain perception was lower with the Papacarie method compared to the conventional method, which was statistically significant.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, treating dental caries involves using rotary instruments, which can create noise that may frighten and cause discomfort in children. Recent research into caries management has introduced minimal invasive techniques like the Papacarie, which is a chemomechanical caries removal agent. OBJECTIVES: To determine and compare the average time taken for caries removal and pain perception during caries removal by Papacarie as a chemomechanical caries removal method with the use of mechanical method using rotary instrument on carious primary molars. METHODOLOGY: This randomized controlled clinical study carried out at the dental clinic in Lagos university teaching hospital. A split-mouth design was used and it involved 50 primary molars in 25 healthy children aged 5-9 years, each child having at least two primary molar teeth with occlusal dentine caries. Each tooth was allocated to the intervention using simple balloting method and treated with either Papacarie or conventional method for caries removal. Outcome measured were caries removal time, pain during caries removal and preference. Pain assessment was blinded. The statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) version 25.0 IBM was used for data analysis. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05 for all statistical tests at 95% confidence interval. RESULT: Twenty-five children (with 50 primary molars) met the inclusion criteria and were recruited for the study. The children were between ages 5-9 years. Twenty-five primary molars were treated using Papacarie caries removal method while 25 primary molars were treated using conventional rotary method. There was no statistically significant difference in the time of caries removal between the two groups. Pain perception was lower with the Papacarie method compared to the conventional method, which was statistically significant. More participants preferred the Papacarie method. Twenty-five children (with 50 primary molars) met the inclusion criteria and were recruited for the study. The children were between ages 5-9 years. Twenty-five primary molars were treated using Papacarie caries removal method while 25 primary molars were treated using

07
RANDOMIZED TRIAL (RCT) Journal of orthodontics (2025) PMID: 39324437 ↗
Does enamel deproteinisation with 10% papain affect shear bond strength of orthodontic adhesives? A randomised controlled trial.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2025 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) published in Journal of orthodontics involving n = 20 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0.002. Key conclusion: Deproteinising improved the SBS of RMGIC and Biofix to the level of TransXT without deproteinisation.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of 10% papain as an enamel deproteinising agent on the shear bond strength (SBS) of three orthodontic adhesives: Transbond XT, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and Biofix. DESIGN: Single-centre, double-blinded, split-mouth randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, India. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 20 participants, requiring bilateral premolar extraction for fixed orthodontic treatment in both the maxillary and mandibular arches, were included in this study. METHODS: In total, 80 premolars from the above-mentioned participants were divided into four groups as follows: group A: Transbond XT deproteinised with 10% papain gel; group B: Biofix deproteinised with 10% papain gel; group C: RMGIC deproteinised with 10% papain gel; and group D: Transbond XT without enamel deproteinisation as a control group-bonded as instructed by the manufacturer. After deproteinisation, brackets were bonded and after a follow-up period of 28 days, the teeth were extracted. The SBS was then measured using the Universal Testing Machine. The force needed to shear the bracket was documented, and bond strengths were subsequently calculated in megapascals (MPa). The obtained results were subjected to statistical analysis and one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the mean SBS between the groups. Subsequently, pairwise comparisons were conducted using Tukey's post hoc test. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in SBS among all groups (P = 0.002). The SBS of TransXT with deproteinisation increased significantly compared with TransXT without deproteinisation (P = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference between the SBS of TransXT without deproteinisation and RMGIC (P = 0.47) and Biofix (P = 0.39), both with deproteinisation. CONCLUSION: The use of 10% papain for deproteinising enamel improved the SBS of all materials. Deproteinising improved the SBS of RMGIC and Biofix to the level of TransXT without deproteinisation.

08
RANDOMIZED TRIAL (RCT) The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry (2024) PMID: 38755991 ↗
Evaluation of Papacarie®, Carie-Care™, BRIX3000™ and conventional hand instrumentation for caries removal in primary teeth: a randomized control study.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2024 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) published in The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry involving n = 120 participants. Key conclusion: While all three CMCR agents aid in the removal of carious tissue, Carie-Care™ was the most effective based on time consumption, pain perception and simplicity of administration.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

In the current odontological era, carious lesions are removed while tooth tissue is preserved. Most of these ideals are met by chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) methods, which are easy and comfortable to use, differentiate and eliminate infected tissues, minimize pressure, vibration and heat, and are cost-effective. This study examines the efficacy of commercially available CMCR agents, namely Papacarie®, Carie-Care™ and BRIX3000™, and a conventional hand instrumentation method for caries removal in deciduous molars in terms of time consumption, ease of application, and pain perception. For this randomized clinical trial, 120 children aged 4 to 9 years were selected and randomly allocated to four groups of 30 patients each. Time consumption, ease of application, and pain perception were evaluated at three intervals: pre-, during- and post-caries removal, using Wong-Baker FACES (WBF) Pain Rating Scale and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scale. The results showed that among the compared materials and conventional hand instrumentation technique, Carie-Care™ was statistically found to be the least time-consuming with a p-value of 0.019, have the least pain perception with a p-value of 0.02, and was clinically the best with respect to manipulation and handling. While all three CMCR agents aid in the removal of carious tissue, Carie-Care™ was the most effective based on time consumption, pain perception and simplicity of administration. ©2024 The Author(s). Published by MRE Press.

09
CLINICAL STUDY Dental and medical problems (2024) PMID: 38441350 ↗
Effects of different concentrations of bromelain and papain enzymes on shear bond strength of composite resin to deep dentin using an etch-and-rinse adhesive system.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2024 Clinical Study published in Dental and medical problems involving n = 12 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0.004. Key conclusion: CONCLUSIONS: Deproteinization with papain and bromelain at different concentrations after acid etching did not affect the SBS of composite resin to deep dentin when using an etch-and-rinse adhesive system.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

BACKGROUND: The dentin substrate can be modified by proteolytic agents, which may affect the bonding strength of adhesive systems to the treated dentin surface. Papain, a cysteine protease enzyme with antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties, can be used for deproteinization of dentin. An alternative deproteinizing enzyme is bromelain. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of deproteinization on the shear bond strength (SBS) of composite resin to deep dentin using different concentrations of bromelain and papain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty upper premolars were extracted and randomly divided into 5 groups (n = 12 per group). In all groups, the dentin surface was etched with 37% phosphoric acid. Group 1 did not receive any enzyme treatment, group 2 was treated with a 10% papain solution, group 3 was treated with a 15% papain solution, group 4 was treated with a 6% bromelain solution, and group 5 was treated with a 10% bromelain solution. After applying an etch-and-rinse adhesive system, the specimens were restored with composite resin and the SBS was measured. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between groups 2 and 3 (10% papain and 15% papain, p = 0.004), groups 2 and 4 (10% papain and 6% bromelain, p = 0.017), groups 4 and 5 (6% bromelain and 10% bromelain, p = 0.021), and groups 3 and 5 (15% papain and 10% bromelain, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Deproteinization with papain and bromelain at different concentrations after acid etching did not affect the SBS of composite resin to deep dentin when using an etch-and-rinse adhesive system. However, the group deproteinized with 15% papain demonstrated a higher SBS than the group deproteinized with 10% papain, and the group deproteinized with 6% bromelain showed a higher SBS compared to the group deproteinized with 10% bromelain.

10
RANDOMIZED TRIAL (RCT) BMC oral health (2024) PMID: 38302932 ↗
Volumetric analysis after caries excavation with caries detecting dyes and chemomechanical caries removal agents using 3D scanner-a randomised clinical trial.
Clinical Trial Synthesis 2024 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) published in BMC oral health involving n = 45 participants; statistical significance reported at p = 0. Key conclusion: CONCLUSION: Brix3000 helps effectively remove denatured teeth with less pain or sensitivity.
View Original PubMed Abstract ↓

AIM: This research aimed to use an extra-oral 3D scanner for conducting volumetric analysis after caries excavation using caries-detecting dyes and chemomechanical caries removal agents in individuals with occlusal and proximal carious lesions. METHODS: Patients with occlusal (A1, A2, A3) and proximal carious lesions (B1, B2, B3) were treated with the conventional rotary technique, caries detecting dyes (CDD) and chemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) method on 90 teeth (n = 45 for each). Group A1, B1: Excavation was performed using diamond points. Group A2, B2: CDD (Sable Seek™ caries indicator, Ultradent) was applied and left for 10 s, and then the cavity was rinsed and dried. For caries removal, diamond points or excavators were used. Group A3 and B3: BRIX3000 papain gel was applied with a micro-brush for 20 s and was activated for 2 min, and then the carious tissue was removed with a sharp spoon excavator. Post-excavation cavity volume analysis was performed using a 3D scanner. The time required and the verbal pain score (VPS) for pain were scored during excavation. Post-restoration evaluation was performed at 1, 3, and 6 months FDI (Federation Dentaire Internationale) criteria. RESULTS: Comparison of age, time and volume with study groups were made using Independent Sample' t' test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for two and more than two groups, respectively. Using Cohen's Kappa Statistics, evaluators 1 and 2 agreed on caries removal status aesthetic, functional and biological properties at different follow-ups. The chi-square test revealed that the rotary groups [A1(2.5 ± 0.4 min) B1(4.0 ± 0.4 min)] had significantly less (p = 0.000) mean procedural time than CDD [A2(4.5 ± 0.4 min) B2(5.7 ± 0.4 min)] and CMCR [A3(5.4 ± 0.7 min) B3(6.2 ± 0.6 min)] groups. The CMCR group showed better patient acceptance and less pain during caries excavation than the rotary and CDD groups. CMCR group showed significantly less mean caries excavated volume(p = 0.000). Evaluation of restoration after 1-, 3-, and 6-month intervals was acceptable for all the groups. CONCLUSION: Brix3000 helps effectively remove denatured teeth with less pain or sensitivity. The time requ

RELATED MONOGRAPHS

Related Monographs in This Category