Literature DB >> 1447381

Comparative in vitro studies of sonic, ultrasonic and reciprocating scaling instruments.

N E Jotikasthira1, T Lie, K N Leknes.   

Abstract

Flat root surface areas of formalin-stored mandibular incisors with plaque and calculus were scaled by sonic (PHATELUS SONIC SCALER, SONIC FLEX 2000, TITAN-S SONIC SCALER) or ultrasonic instruments (HYGIENIST ULTRASONIC SCALER, CAVITRON) or by a new reciprocating scaling insert for the EVA/PROFIN system. The test areas were photographed by SEM and coded micrographs were independently graded by three examiners using the RCI (Remaining Calculus Index) and the RLTSI (Roughness Loss of Tooth Substance Index). The findings revealed that the sonic scalers as a group removed calculus more completely but also left significantly more roughness and loss of tooth substance than the other instruments tested. No difference was seen between the two ultrasonic scalers. The reciprocating insert gave results similar to those of the ultrasonic except for the scaling time which was significantly longer for the new "cleansing principle".

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1447381     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1992.tb00684.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Periodontol        ISSN: 0303-6979            Impact factor:   8.728


  10 in total

1.  Comparison of Root Surface Roughness Produced By Hand Instruments and Ultrasonic Scalers: An Invitro Study.

Authors:  Pawan Kumar; Swarga Jyoti Das; Saindhya Tora Sonowal; Jitendra Chawla
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-11-01

2.  Surface topography of composite restorative materials following ultrasonic scaling and its Impact on bacterial plaque accumulation. An in-vitro SEM study.

Authors:  A Eid Hossam; A Togoo Rafi; A Saleh Ahmed; Phani Cr Sumanth
Journal:  J Int Oral Health       Date:  2013-06-23

3.  A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Hojatollah Yousefimanesh; Maryam Robati; Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh; Reza Molla
Journal:  J Periodontal Implant Sci       Date:  2012-12-31       Impact factor: 2.614

4.  A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments--an in vitro profilometric and SEM study.

Authors:  Sumita Singh; Ashita Uppoor; Dilip Nayak
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.698

5.  Evaluation of effect of ultrasonic scaling on surface roughness of four different tooth-colored class V restorations: An in-vitro study.

Authors:  Pratima R Shenoi; Gautam P Badole; Rajiv T Khode; Elakshi S Morey; Pooja G Singare
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2014-09

6.  Effect of oral prophylactic instrumentation on the surface texture of all metal restorative materials.

Authors:  C L Rajeswari; M V Sunil Kumar
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

7.  Oral health status in Sichuan Province: findings from the oral health survey of Sichuan, 2015-2016.

Authors:  Wei Yin; Ying-Ming Yang; Hong Chen; Xue Li; Zhuo Wang; Li Cheng; Qiu-Dan Yin; Hong-Zhi Fang; Wei Fei; Fang-Lin Mi; Min-Hai Nie; Tao Hu; Xue-Dong Zhou
Journal:  Int J Oral Sci       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 6.344

8.  The effect of miniaturized manual versus mechanical instruments on calculus removal and root surface characteristics: An in vitro light microscopic study.

Authors:  Fabia Profili; Scilla Sparabombe; Andrew Tawse Smith; Orlando D'Isidoro; Alessandro Quaranta
Journal:  Clin Exp Dent Res       Date:  2019-07-15

9.  Rotary instruments in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Parveen Dahiya; Reet Kamal
Journal:  J Indian Soc Periodontol       Date:  2013-11

10.  Comparative in vitro study of root roughness after instrumentation with ultrasonic and diamond tip sonic scaler.

Authors:  Fernanda Vieira Ribeiro; Renato Correa Viana Casarin; Francisco Humberto Nociti Júnior; Enilson Antônio Sallum; Antonio Wilson Sallum; Márcio Zaffalon Casati
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.698

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.