T Kocher1, J König, P Hansen, A Rühling. 1. Abteilung Parodontologie in der Poliklinik für Zahnerhaltung, Parodontologie und Kinderzahnheilkunde im Zentrum für Zahn-Mund- und Kieferheilkunde, Greifswald, Germany. kocher@mail.uni-greifswald.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, we have developed teflon-coated sonic scaler inserts which remove plaque without removing tooth substance; they polish subgingivally. In a preclinical test, we showed that these modified inserts remove plaque nearly as effectively as do conventional sonic scaler inserts. The present investigation was intended as a proof-of-principle of subgingival polishing. The aim was to study the effect of subgingival polishing on the resolution of gingival inflammation in comparison to conventional scaling. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 10 patients with moderate to advanced periodontal disease, who had at least 2 single-rooted teeth with a probing depth of >6 mm in each quadrant, all single-rooted teeth were subjected to one treatment regimen consisting of 2 instrumentation episodes (1st/2nd treatment): curette/curette, curette/teflon-coated sonic scaler, teflon-coated sonic scaler/teflon-coated sonic scaler, and an untreated control. The second treatment session was performed 3 months after the first instrumentation, and the final registration 3 months after the second instrumentation. Clinical measurements included probing depth, change of clinical attachment level, bleeding upon probing, and plaque scores. RESULTS: Probing depth, attachment level, and bleeding scores were reduced in the 3 instrumentation groups versus the control group in the 1st period; in the 2nd period, no further change occurred. Subgingival polishing with teflon-coated sonic scaler inserts was slightly less effective than conventional scaling. CONCLUSION: Subgingival polishing with teflon-coated sonic scaler inserts seems to be nearly as effective as conventional scaling. Thus, it may be the instrumentation of choice for maintenance treatment of residual pockets.
BACKGROUND: Recently, we have developed teflon-coated sonic scaler inserts which remove plaque without removing tooth substance; they polish subgingivally. In a preclinical test, we showed that these modified inserts remove plaque nearly as effectively as do conventional sonic scaler inserts. The present investigation was intended as a proof-of-principle of subgingival polishing. The aim was to study the effect of subgingival polishing on the resolution of gingival inflammation in comparison to conventional scaling. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 10 patients with moderate to advanced periodontal disease, who had at least 2 single-rooted teeth with a probing depth of >6 mm in each quadrant, all single-rooted teeth were subjected to one treatment regimen consisting of 2 instrumentation episodes (1st/2nd treatment): curette/curette, curette/teflon-coated sonic scaler, teflon-coated sonic scaler/teflon-coated sonic scaler, and an untreated control. The second treatment session was performed 3 months after the first instrumentation, and the final registration 3 months after the second instrumentation. Clinical measurements included probing depth, change of clinical attachment level, bleeding upon probing, and plaque scores. RESULTS: Probing depth, attachment level, and bleeding scores were reduced in the 3 instrumentation groups versus the control group in the 1st period; in the 2nd period, no further change occurred. Subgingival polishing with teflon-coated sonic scaler inserts was slightly less effective than conventional scaling. CONCLUSION: Subgingival polishing with teflon-coated sonic scaler inserts seems to be nearly as effective as conventional scaling. Thus, it may be the instrumentation of choice for maintenance treatment of residual pockets.