T Kocher1, M Rosin, N Langenbeck, O Bernhardt. 1. Unit of Periodontology, Department for Restorative Dentistry, Periodontics, and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Rotbergerstr. 8, 17 487 Greifswald, Germany. kocher@mail.uni-greifswald.de
Abstract
AIM: To assess the root surface roughness and topography on extracted teeth using different instruments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the present study, laser profilometry was used to examine the 3-D roughness values Ra and Rz and topography of root surfaces of periodontally-involved teeth instrumented in vivo with curette, conventional ultrasonic device, conventional or teflon-coated sonic scaler insert, or the Periotor instrument (12 teeth per instrument type), and compare these with uninstrumented cementum surfaces. RESULTS: The roughness values Ra and Rz of the roots treated with the different instruments showed a similar pattern: curettes and the Periotor instrument produced the smoothest surfaces (Ra about 1.5 microm, Rz 30 microm); the 4 other instruments created similar Ra values of approximately 2-3 microm and Rz roughness of about 50-70 microm, which equals the untreated root surface. For Ra, the difference between the curette or the Periotor instrument and the teflon-coated sonic insert or ultrasonic insert was significant, and for Rz, a significant difference was found between the curette or the Periotor instrument and ultrasonic insert. As opposed to surfaces debrided with the Periotor and teflon-coated sonic scaler, it appears that hand instruments markedly reconfigure surfaces. CONCLUSION: The lowest root-surface roughness values were obtained with hand instruments. The teflon tubing on the sonic scaler insert effected no change of topography or roughness as compared to uninstrumented, control surfaces. However, it must be pointed out that hard-tissue removal was not investigated.
AIM: To assess the root surface roughness and topography on extracted teeth using different instruments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the present study, laser profilometry was used to examine the 3-D roughness values Ra and Rz and topography of root surfaces of periodontally-involved teeth instrumented in vivo with curette, conventional ultrasonic device, conventional or teflon-coated sonic scaler insert, or the Periotor instrument (12 teeth per instrument type), and compare these with uninstrumented cementum surfaces. RESULTS: The roughness values Ra and Rz of the roots treated with the different instruments showed a similar pattern: curettes and the Periotor instrument produced the smoothest surfaces (Ra about 1.5 microm, Rz 30 microm); the 4 other instruments created similar Ra values of approximately 2-3 microm and Rz roughness of about 50-70 microm, which equals the untreated root surface. For Ra, the difference between the curette or the Periotor instrument and the teflon-coated sonic insert or ultrasonic insert was significant, and for Rz, a significant difference was found between the curette or the Periotor instrument and ultrasonic insert. As opposed to surfaces debrided with the Periotor and teflon-coated sonic scaler, it appears that hand instruments markedly reconfigure surfaces. CONCLUSION: The lowest root-surface roughness values were obtained with hand instruments. The teflon tubing on the sonic scaler insert effected no change of topography or roughness as compared to uninstrumented, control surfaces. However, it must be pointed out that hard-tissue removal was not investigated.