Christian Graetz1, Anna Plaumann2, Robert Wittich2, Claudia Springer2, Maren Kahl2, Christof E Dörfer2, Karim Fawzy El-Sayed2,3. 1. Clinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany. graetz@konspar.uni-kiel.de. 2. Clinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany. 3. Oral Medicine and Periodontology Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the development of less invasive devices, a debate exists about the benefits and risks of hand versus powered root surface instrumentation used in supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). The aim of the in vitro study was to differentially compare plaque removal efficacy and root surface roughening of newly developed sonic, ultrasonic scaler, and curettes in the hands of experienced versus less experienced operators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sonic (AIR), ultrasonic devices (TIG), and double-gracey curettes (GRA) were utilized by seven experienced (EO) and four less experienced operators (LO) for root surface instrumentation of standardized plastic teeth on manikins' heads in a randomized sequence. The proportion of residual simulated plaque (RSP area in %) was planimetrically assessed, and the average root surface roughness produced (Ra and ∆Ra in μm) was measured by a precision profilometer. RESULTS: The uninstrumented root surfaces showed a Ra of (median (Q25/Q75)) 1.00 μm (0.83/1.16). Following instrumentation, EO left significantly less RSP than LO regardless of the used instruments (20.00 % (10.00/34.00) vs. 26.00 % (12.00/44.00) p < 0.001), whereas the ∆Ra values (0.29 μm (-0.04/0.96) vs. 0.35 μm (-0.04/1.01), p = 0.237) failed to show significant differences. The surface roughness was higher with GRA followed by AIR then TIG regardless of operators' experience (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the present study, the sonic device was most efficient in plaque removal, while the ultrasonic device produced the least surface roughness. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All three tested instruments seem effective in the mechanical root debridement during SPT, whereat the ultrasonic device show the smoothest root surface of all.
BACKGROUND: Despite the development of less invasive devices, a debate exists about the benefits and risks of hand versus powered root surface instrumentation used in supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). The aim of the in vitro study was to differentially compare plaque removal efficacy and root surface roughening of newly developed sonic, ultrasonic scaler, and curettes in the hands of experienced versus less experienced operators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sonic (AIR), ultrasonic devices (TIG), and double-gracey curettes (GRA) were utilized by seven experienced (EO) and four less experienced operators (LO) for root surface instrumentation of standardized plastic teeth on manikins' heads in a randomized sequence. The proportion of residual simulated plaque (RSP area in %) was planimetrically assessed, and the average root surface roughness produced (Ra and ∆Ra in μm) was measured by a precision profilometer. RESULTS: The uninstrumented root surfaces showed a Ra of (median (Q25/Q75)) 1.00 μm (0.83/1.16). Following instrumentation, EO left significantly less RSP than LO regardless of the used instruments (20.00 % (10.00/34.00) vs. 26.00 % (12.00/44.00) p < 0.001), whereas the ∆Ra values (0.29 μm (-0.04/0.96) vs. 0.35 μm (-0.04/1.01), p = 0.237) failed to show significant differences. The surface roughness was higher with GRA followed by AIR then TIG regardless of operators' experience (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the present study, the sonic device was most efficient in plaque removal, while the ultrasonic device produced the least surface roughness. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All three tested instruments seem effective in the mechanical root debridement during SPT, whereat the ultrasonic device show the smoothest root surface of all.
Keywords:
In vitro model; Nonsurgical periodontal therapy; Scaling and root planning; Subgingival plaque
Authors: A Damien Walmsley; Simon C Lea; Bernhard Felver; David C King; Gareth J Price Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Anton Sculean; Klaus-Dieter Bastendorf; Christian Becker; Bernita Bush; Johannes Einwag; Carmen Lanoway; Ursula Platzer; Petra Schmage; Brigitte Schoeneich; Clemens Walter; Jan L Wennström; Thomas F Flemmig Journal: Quintessence Int Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.677
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