Pawan Kumar1, Swarga Jyoti Das2, Saindhya Tora Sonowal3, Jitendra Chawla4. 1. Senior Resident, Department of Periodontics, Oral Health Science Centre, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research , Chandigarh, India . 2. Professor and HOD, Department of Periodontics, Regional Dental College , Bhangagarh, Guwahati, Assam, India . 3. Senior Lecturer, Department of Periodontics, Mansarovar Dental College , Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India . 4. Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Government Dental College , Nagpur, Maharastra, India .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Instrumentation on tooth surface for debridement of hard and soft debris forms the basis of periodontal therapy. This involves periodic removal of accumulated material using different methods of instrumentation. An ideal instrument should eliminate all the deposits from the root surfaces with no or minimal alteration of the natural morphology. AIM: To compare the root surface roughness after root planing performed with gracey curette and by ultrasonic scalers (Satelec P-5 Booster) set at different power modes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The root surface roughness and its surface microtopography resulting from the use of Gracey curette, ultrasonic instrument at low, medium and high power setting on 35 healthy premolars extracted for orthodontic treatment purpose were examined using Optical Profilometer and the surface topography was assessed using Field Emission Microscope. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to observe the variance in a particular variable is partitioned into components attributable to different sources of variation. Duncan multiple range tests were used to determine whether three or more means differ significantly. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The mean roughness was found to be the highest in group where Scaling and Root Planing (SRP) was performed using ultrasonic scaler at low power mode (3.03±1.54 μm) whereas the lowest surface roughness was seen on the samples where SRP was performed using ultrasonic scaler at medium power mode. The surface roughness in group where SRP was performed with ultrasonic scaler at high power mode (2.22±0.74μm) was found to be similar to that of group in which root planing was carried out using curette (2.24±1.71μm).
BACKGROUND: Instrumentation on tooth surface for debridement of hard and soft debris forms the basis of periodontal therapy. This involves periodic removal of accumulated material using different methods of instrumentation. An ideal instrument should eliminate all the deposits from the root surfaces with no or minimal alteration of the natural morphology. AIM: To compare the root surface roughness after root planing performed with gracey curette and by ultrasonic scalers (Satelec P-5 Booster) set at different power modes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The root surface roughness and its surface microtopography resulting from the use of Gracey curette, ultrasonic instrument at low, medium and high power setting on 35 healthy premolars extracted for orthodontic treatment purpose were examined using Optical Profilometer and the surface topography was assessed using Field Emission Microscope. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to observe the variance in a particular variable is partitioned into components attributable to different sources of variation. Duncan multiple range tests were used to determine whether three or more means differ significantly. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The mean roughness was found to be the highest in group where Scaling and Root Planing (SRP) was performed using ultrasonic scaler at low power mode (3.03±1.54 μm) whereas the lowest surface roughness was seen on the samples where SRP was performed using ultrasonic scaler at medium power mode. The surface roughness in group where SRP was performed with ultrasonic scaler at high power mode (2.22±0.74μm) was found to be similar to that of group in which root planing was carried out using curette (2.24±1.71μm).
Authors: C M Bollen; W Papaioanno; J Van Eldere; E Schepers; M Quirynen; D van Steenberghe Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 5.977
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