Literature DB >> 18060565

Comparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surface in vivo.

Fábio André Santos1, Márcia Thaís Pochapski, Paola Cristina Leal, Patrícia Panizzi Gimenes-Sakima, Elcio Marcantonio.   

Abstract

The present study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of different ultrasonic instruments on the root surface. Fourteen patients with 35 single root teeth designated for extraction were recruited to the present study. Teeth were assigned to four experimental groups: group 1, piezoelectric ultrasonic device; group 2, magnetostrictive ultrasonic device; group 3, hand instrumentation; and group 4, untreated teeth (control). After instrumentation, the teeth were extracted and the presence of residual deposits (roughness and root surfaces characteristics) were analyzed. The results showed that residual deposits were similar in all tested groups: piezoelectric, 8.7%; magnetostrictive, 9.7%; hand instrumentation, 11.1% and control, 76.4%. There were statistically significant differences between control and all the experimental groups (p < 0.0001). With respect to roughness parameters evaluation, R(a) and R(z) of the roots treated with the different instruments showed a similar pattern (p > 0.05), but for R(t) and R(y), a significant difference was observed (p < 0.05) among hand instrumentation and ultrasonic devices. SEM analysis revealed a similar root surface pattern for the ultrasonic devices, but curettes showed many instrumental scratches, deep gouges, and a relatively large amount of dentin was removed. Within the limits of the study, although the instruments produced similar results, root surfaces instrumentated with curettes were rougher and had more root surface tissue removed than with the ultrasonic device.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18060565     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-007-0167-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  33 in total

1.  Subgingival polishing with a teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth (II). Subgingival roughness.

Authors:  T Kocher; M Rosin; N Langenbeck; O Bernhardt
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 8.728

2.  Surface roughness and wettability of enamel and dentine surfaces prepared with different dental burs.

Authors:  W M Al-Omari; C A Mitchell; J L Cunningham
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.837

3.  The effectiveness of different root debridement modalities in open flap surgery.

Authors:  M B Huerzeler; F T Einsele; M Leupolz; U Kerkhecker; J R Strub
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 8.728

4.  Root surface smoothness or roughness following open debridement. An in vivo study.

Authors:  L Schlageter; E M Rateitschak-Plüss; J P Schwarz
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 8.728

5.  An evaluation of basic periodontal therapy using sonic and ultrasonic scalers.

Authors:  B Loos; R Kiger; J Egelberg
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 8.728

6.  Effects of curet and ultrasonics on root surfaces.

Authors:  G N Cross-Poline; D J Stach; S M Newman
Journal:  Am J Dent       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 1.522

7.  Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy. I. Moderately advanced periodontitis.

Authors:  A Badersten; R Nilvéus; J Egelberg
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  1981-02       Impact factor: 8.728

8.  A comparative in vitro study of a magnetostrictive and a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling instrument.

Authors:  A Busslinger; K Lampe; M Beuchat; B Lehmann
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 8.728

9.  An in vitro comparative study of a reciprocating scaler for root surface debridement.

Authors:  A Lee; P A Heasman; P J Kelly
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  1996 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Efficacy of subgingival calculus removal with Er:YAG laser compared to mechanical debridement: an in situ study.

Authors:  Jörg Eberhard; Heiko Ehlers; Wolfgang Falk; Yahya Açil; Hans-Karl Albers; Sören Jepsen
Journal:  J Clin Periodontol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 8.728

View more
  8 in total

1.  Cleaning ability and induced dentin loss of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic instrument at different power settings.

Authors:  Kathrin Lampe Bless; Beatrice Sener; Jürg Dual; Thomas Attin; Patrick R Schmidlin
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2010-02-03       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Analysing root roughness and smear layer relationship by comparing contemporary dental curettes with conventional dental curettes: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sania Riaz; Shahbaz Ahmed; Sumaiya Shabbir; Ziaur Rahman Khan; Syed Jaffar Abbas Zaidi; Meshal Muhammad Naeem; Waqas Ahmed Farooqui
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 3.747

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.  Piezoelectric-assisted removal of a benign fibrous histiocytoma of the mandible: an innovative technique for prevention of dentoalveolar nerve injury.

Authors:  Maximilian E H Wagner; Majeed Rana; Wolfgang Traenkenschuh; Horst Kokemueller; André M Eckardt; Nils-Claudius Gellrich
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2011-10-31       Impact factor: 2.151

5.  Ultramorphology of the root surface subsequent to hand-ultrasonic simultaneous instrumentation during non-surgical periodontal treatments: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Simone D Aspriello; Matteo Piemontese; Luca Levrini; Salvatore Sauro
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.698

6.  The effect of various ultrasonic and hand instruments on the root surfaces of human single rooted teeth: A Planimetric and Profilometric study.

Authors:  Antush Mittal; Ashish Sham Nichani; Ranganath Venugopal; Vuppalapati Rajani
Journal:  J Indian Soc Periodontol       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec

7.  Substrate roughness induces the development of defective E-cadherin junctions in human gingival keratinocytes.

Authors:  Chengbiao Jin; Gayoung Lee; Changseok Oh; Hyun Jung Kim; Hyun-Man Kim
Journal:  J Periodontal Implant Sci       Date:  2017-04-29       Impact factor: 2.614

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
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.