PURPOSE: This pilot study compared the clinical endpoints of the magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments on calculus removal. The null hypothesis stated that there is no statistically significant difference in calculus removal between the 2 instruments. METHODS: A quasi-experimental pre- and post-test design was used. Eighteen participants were included. The magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments were used in 2 assigned contra-lateral quadrants on each participant. A data collector, blind to treatment assignment, assessed the calculus on 6 predetermined tooth sites before and after ultrasonic instrumentation. Calculus size was evaluated using ordinal measurements on a 4 point scale (0, 1, 2, 3). Subjects were required to have size 2 or 3 calculus deposit on the 6 predetermined sites. One clinician instrumented the pre-assigned quadrants. A maximum time of 20 minutes of instrumentation was allowed with each technology. Immediately after instrumentation, the data collector then conducted the post-test calculus evaluation. RESULTS: The repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the pre- and post-test calculus data (p≤0.05). The null hypothesis was accepted indicating that there is no statistically significant difference in calculus removal when comparing technologies (p≤0.05). Therefore, under similar conditions, both technologies removed the same amount of calculus. CONCLUSION: This research design could be used as a foundation for continued research in this field. Future studies include implementing this study design with a larger sample size and/or modifying the study design to include multiple clinicians who are data collectors. Also, deposit removal with periodontal maintenance patients could be explored.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This pilot study compared the clinical endpoints of the magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments on calculus removal. The null hypothesis stated that there is no statistically significant difference in calculus removal between the 2 instruments. METHODS: A quasi-experimental pre- and post-test design was used. Eighteen participants were included. The magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments were used in 2 assigned contra-lateral quadrants on each participant. A data collector, blind to treatment assignment, assessed the calculus on 6 predetermined tooth sites before and after ultrasonic instrumentation. Calculus size was evaluated using ordinal measurements on a 4 point scale (0, 1, 2, 3). Subjects were required to have size 2 or 3 calculus deposit on the 6 predetermined sites. One clinician instrumented the pre-assigned quadrants. A maximum time of 20 minutes of instrumentation was allowed with each technology. Immediately after instrumentation, the data collector then conducted the post-test calculus evaluation. RESULTS: The repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the pre- and post-test calculus data (p≤0.05). The null hypothesis was accepted indicating that there is no statistically significant difference in calculus removal when comparing technologies (p≤0.05). Therefore, under similar conditions, both technologies removed the same amount of calculus. CONCLUSION: This research design could be used as a foundation for continued research in this field. Future studies include implementing this study design with a larger sample size and/or modifying the study design to include multiple clinicians who are data collectors. Also, deposit removal with periodontal maintenance patients could be explored.