## 3 Results  
A total of 90 primary extracted teeth were tested. All the teeth samples used in the experiment were divided into two main groups receiving caries detector dyes, Group I (without dentine bonding agent) and group II (with dentine bonding agent) and again, each group was divided in to three subgroups, groups A, B and C (Table 1).  
In group I, among the three different caries detector dyes, all the teeth were stained in group C followed by group A and group B, respectively. When observations were noted in group II with dentine bonding agent application, only four teeth (26.6%) in group C showed the staining (Figure 4). The Mann-Whitney U test showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups for staining of different tooth surfaces (\(p\) < 0.05) (Table 2). Table 3 shows the ability of distilled water and sodium hypochlorite to remove caries indicator dyes from the tooth surface. Out of the 15 samples of Snoop caries detector dye, 10 teeth had the stain removed by distilled water (66.6%) and completely with sodium hypochlorite (100%). Whereas in the Sable seek group, in 11 samples, the stain was removed with distilled water (73%), and in all 15 samples, the dye stain was removed when sodium hypochlorite was used (100%). In the Elements group, the stain was not removed in any of the sample when distilled water was used (0%), while only in four samples was sodium hypochlorite able to remove the caries detector dye stain (26.66%) (Figure 5). The Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in stain removal among the different groups either by distilled water or sodium hypochlorite as observed in Table 4 and Figure 6.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Groups** & **Mean Rank** & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Distilled water} & Snoop & 15.50 & \multirow{3}{*}{Chi Square = 44.00} \\  & Sable seek & 15.50 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(p<0.001\)} \\  & Elements & 38.00 & \\  & Snoop & 15.00 & \\  & Sable seek & 22.50 & \\  & Elements & 31.50 & \multirow{3}{*}{\(p<0.001\)} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Kruskal–Wallis analysis for comparison of stain removal among the different groups either by distilled water or sodium hypochlorite.  
Figure 5: Comparison of distilled water and 3.25% sodium hypochlorite staining removal efficiency amongst the three different groups (Snoop, Sable seek and Elements).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
\begin{tabular}{c} Mann–Whitney \\ U = 82.50 \\ \(p\) value = 0.035 \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison of different caries detector dyes staining of different tooth surfaces according to the use of a bonding agent.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Caries Detector Dyes** & **With Distilled Water** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **With Sodium** \\ **Hypochlorite 3.25\%** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Group A-15} & Snoop & 10 (66.6\%) & 15 (100\%) \\  & Sable seek & 11 (73\%) & 15 (100\%) \\  & Elements & 0 (0\%) & 4 (26\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Stain removal efficiency of distilled water and sodium hypochlorite.