BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the benefits and risks of hand versus powered root surface instrumentation. Moreover, the influence of operators' experience on treatment results is unclear. We compared newly developed sonic, ultrasonic and hand instruments, hypothesizing that powered devices allow to remove more simulated plaque in less time than hand instruments, with significant influence of operators' experience. METHODS:Sonic scaler (AIR), ultrasonic scaler (TIG) device and double Gracey curettes (GRA) were utilized by seven experienced operators (EOs) and four less experienced operators (LOs) in periodontitis manikin heads. The time required for treatment, the proportion of residual-simulated plaque and the weight loss caused by scaling as a proxy for root surface destruction were measured. RESULTS: Using different instruments led to significantly different proportions of removed simulated plaque regardless of operators' experience (AIR, 80.2 ± 21.3 %, TIG, 69.9 ± 22.5 %, GRA, 73.1 ± 20.0 %) (p < 0.001). Treatment times did not significantly differ between EO and LO (p > 0.05). Weight loss was increased when using hand instead of powered instruments (p < 0.001), with significantly higher weight loss induced by LO than EO (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Within the present study, EO did not remove more simulated plaque in less time but induced less root surface destruction. Using a sonic device was most beneficial for plaque removal. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Successful root surface debridement requires both time and training regardless of the used instrument. Hand instruments might cause more damage to root surfaces, especially in the hands of less experienced operators.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the benefits and risks of hand versus powered root surface instrumentation. Moreover, the influence of operators' experience on treatment results is unclear. We compared newly developed sonic, ultrasonic and hand instruments, hypothesizing that powered devices allow to remove more simulated plaque in less time than hand instruments, with significant influence of operators' experience. METHODS: Sonic scaler (AIR), ultrasonic scaler (TIG) device and double Gracey curettes (GRA) were utilized by seven experienced operators (EOs) and four less experienced operators (LOs) in periodontitis manikin heads. The time required for treatment, the proportion of residual-simulated plaque and the weight loss caused by scaling as a proxy for root surface destruction were measured. RESULTS: Using different instruments led to significantly different proportions of removed simulated plaque regardless of operators' experience (AIR, 80.2 ± 21.3 %, TIG, 69.9 ± 22.5 %, GRA, 73.1 ± 20.0 %) (p < 0.001). Treatment times did not significantly differ between EO and LO (p > 0.05). Weight loss was increased when using hand instead of powered instruments (p < 0.001), with significantly higher weight loss induced by LO than EO (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Within the present study, EO did not remove more simulated plaque in less time but induced less root surface destruction. Using a sonic device was most beneficial for plaque removal. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Successful root surface debridement requires both time and training regardless of the used instrument. Hand instruments might cause more damage to root surfaces, especially in the hands of less experienced operators.
Authors: Christian Graetz; Paula Fecke; Miriam Seidel; Anne Sophie Engel; Susanne Schorr; Johanna Sentker; Christof E Dörfer; Sonja Sälzer Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Miriam Seidel; Simone Sutor; Jonas Conrad; Anne Sophie Engel; Antje Geiken; Sonja Sälzer; Christian Graetz Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 2.757