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

Antush Mittal, Ashish Sham Nichani, Ranganath Venugopal, Vuppalapati Rajani, Antush Mittal, Ashish Sham Nichani, Ranganath Venugopal, Vuppalapati Rajani

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different ultrasonic scalers and a periodontal curette on the root surfaces for calculus removal and root surface roughness.

Materials and methods: 40 single rooted teeth with subgingival calculus destined for extraction were assigned to one of three experimental groups (n = 10, in each group) and one control group (untreated, n = 10). Experimental groups were: Group 1: Piezoelectric ultrasonic group; Group 2: Magnetostrictive ultrasonic group; Group 3: Hand instrumentation group (Curette). After instrumentation, the teeth were extracted and the presence of residual deposits and root surface roughness were analyzed using Planimetric analyzing tool (Tool that measures the area of a plane figure as a mechanically coupled pointer traversing the perimeter of figure) and Surface Profilometer (Instrument used for profiling of an object). Root surface characteristics were evaluated qualitatively using SEM. Standardization of force, angulations and adaptation of instrument couldn't be achieved in our study due to in vivo study design rather than in vitro design in previous studies where procedure was done on the extracted teeth samples.

Results: The results of the study showed that residual deposits were similar in all experimental groups. With respect to roughness parameters, Rq (Root mean square roughness) and Rt (Total roughness) a significant difference was observed (P < 0.001) among hand instrumentation and ultrasonic devices. SEM analysis revealed a similar root surface pattern for the ultrasonic devices, but curette showed many instrument scratches, gouges, and removal of large amount of cementum.

Conclusions: Curette produced the rougher root surfaces than two ultrasonic devices used in the study and caused more root surface removal. Piezoelectric devices produced minimum root surface roughness but caused more root substance removal and more cracks than Magnetostrictive ultrasonic devices.

Keywords: Dental calculus; hand curette; magnetostrictive ultrasonic; piezoelectric ultrasonic; profilometer; scaling and root planing; scanning electron microscope; surface roughness.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Instrument tips used in the study, (a) Curette # 5/6, (b) Cavitron™ TFI p-10 tip, (c) EMS™ PS tip
Figure 2
Figure 2
Measurement of root surface roughness within landmarks, 1. Gingival groove, 2. Lateral borders of connective tissue attachment, 3. Coronal borders of connective tissue attachment
Figure 3
Figure 3
Roughness profile of surface obtained using profilometer
Figure 4
Figure 4
SEM measurement of samples below gingival groove at ×100, (a) ultrasonic instrumentation on root surface, (b) Magnetostrictive ultrasonic instrumentation on root surface, (c) Hand instrumentation (Gracey Curette) on root surface
Graph 1
Graph 1
Intra-examiner repeatability. Bland-Altman plot of the data obtained by repeat measurements in two different time points. One point is superposed
Graph 2
Graph 2
Pearson correlation test among surface roughness parameters and radicular stained deposits (independent of the treatment)
Graph 3
Graph 3
Surface roughness values in test groups

References

    1. Kishida M, Sato S, Ito K. Comparison of the effects of various periodontal rotary instruments on surface characteristics of root surface. J Oral Sci. 2004;46:1–8.
    1. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. Treatment of plaque-induced gingivitis, chronic periodontitis and other clinical conditions. J Periodontol. 2001;72:1790–800.
    1. Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J. Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy. I. Moderately advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol. 1981;8:57–72.
    1. Lindhe J, Westfelt E, Nyman S, Socransky SS, Haffajee AD. Long-term effect of surgical/non-surgical treatment of periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol. 1984;11:448–58.
    1. Fujikawa K, O’Leary TJ, Kafrawy AH. The effect of retained subgingival calculus on healing after flap surgery. J Periodontol. 1988;59:170–5.
    1. Breininger DR, O’Leary TJ, Blumenshine RV. Comparative effectiveness of ultrasonic and hand scaling for the removal of subgingival plaque and calculus. J Periodontol. 1987;58:9–18.
    1. Buchanan SA, Robertson PB. Calculus removal by scaling/root planing with and without surgical access. J Periodontol. 1987;58:159–63.
    1. Kepic TJ, O’Leary TJ, Kafrawy AH. Total calculus removal: An attainable objective? J Periodontol. 1990;61:16–20.
    1. Sherman PR, Hutchens LH, Jr, Jewson LG. The effectiveness of subgingival scaling and root planing. II. Clinical responses related to residual calculus. J Periodontol. 1990;61:9–15.
    1. Dragoo MR. A clinical evaluation of hand and ultrasonic instruments on subgingival debridement. Part I. With unmodified and modified ultrasonic inserts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1992;12:310–23.
    1. Cross-Poline GN, Stach DJ, Newman SM. Effects of curette and ultrasonics on root surfaces. Am J Dent. 1995;8:131–3.
    1. Jepsen S, Ayna M, Hedderich J, Eberhard J. Significant influence of scaler tip design on root substance loss resulting from ultrasonic scaling: A laserprofilometric in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol. 2004;31:1003–6.
    1. Schmidlin PR, Beuchat M, Busslinger A, Lehmann B, Lutz F. Tooth substance loss resulting from mechanical, sonic and ultrasonic root instrumentation assessed by liquid scintillation. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28:1058–66.
    1. Ewen SJ, Gwinnett AJ. A scanning electron microscopic study of teeth following periodontal instrumentation. J Periodontol. 1977;48:92–7.
    1. Rosenberg RM, Ash MM., Jr The effect of root roughness on plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. J Periodontol. 1974;45:146–50.
    1. Santos FA, Pochapski MT, Leal PC, Gimenes-Sakima PP, Marcantonio E., Jr Comparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surfaces in vivo. Clin Oral Invest. 2008;12:143–50.
    1. Busslinger A, Lampe K, Beuchat M, Lehmann B. A comparative in vitro study of a magnetostrictive and a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling instrument. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28:642–9.
    1. Eberhard J, Ehlers H, Falk W, Acil Y, Albers HK, Jepsen S. Efficacy of subgingival calculus removal with Er: YAG laser compared to the mechanical debridement: An in situ study. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30:511–8.
    1. Huerzeler MB, Einsele FT, Leupolz M, Kerkhecker U, Strub JR. The effectiveness of different root debridement modalities in open flap surgery. J Clin Periodontol. 1998;25:202–8.
    1. Yukna RA, Scott JB, Aichelmann-Reidy ME, LeBlanc DM, Mayer ET. Clinical evaluation of the speed and effectiveness of subgingival calculus removal on single-rooted teeth with diamond-coated ultrasonic tips. J Periodontol. 1997;68:436–42.
    1. Kocher T, Langenbeck M, Ruhling A, Plagmann HC. Subgingival polishing with a teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth. (I) Residual deposits. J Clin Periodontol. 2000;27:243–9.
    1. Bye FL, Ghilzon RS, Caffesse RG. Root surface roughness after the use of different modes of instrumentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1986;5:37–47.
    1. Schlageter L, Rateitschak–Pluss EM, Schwarz JP. Root surface smoothness or roughness following open flap debridement. An in vivo study. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23:460–4.
    1. Vastardis S, Yukna RA, Rice DA, Mercante D. Root surface removal and resultant surface texture with diamond-coated ultrasonic inserts: An in vitro and SEM study. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32:467–73.
    1. Schmidlin PR, Beuchat M, Busslinger A, Lehmann B, Lutz F. Tooth substance loss resulting from mechanical, sonic and ultrasonic root instrumentation assessed by liquid scintillation. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28:1058–66.
    1. Volkinbdrg JW, Green E, Armitage GC. The nature of root surfaces after curette, cavitron and alpha-sonic instrumentation. J Periodontal Res. 1976;11:374–81.
    1. Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Hickel R, Klaiber B. The effect of working parameters on root substance removal using a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler in vitro. J Clin Periodontol. 1998;25:158–63.
    1. Adriaens PA, De Boever JA, Loesche WJ. Bacterial invasion in root cementum and radicular dentin of periodontally diseased teeth in humans. J Periodontol. 1988;59:222–30.
    1. Oberholzer R, Rateitschak KH. Root cleaning or root smoothing. An in vivo study. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23:326–30.
    1. Jones SJ, Lozdan J, Boyde A. Tooth surfaces treated in situ with periodontal instruments. Scanning electron microscopic studies. Br Dent J. 1972;132:57–64.
    1. Leknes KN, Lie T, Wikesjo UM, Bogle GC, Selvig KA. Influence of tooth instrumentation roughness on subgingival microbial colonisation. J Periodontol. 1994;65:303–8.
    1. Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surface free energy on supragingival plaque formation in man. J Clin Periodontol. 1995;22:1–14.
    1. Corbet EF, Vaughan AJ, Kieser J. The periodontally involved root surface. J Clin Periodontol. 1993;20:402–10.
    1. Khatiblou FA, Ghodssi A. Root surface smoothness or roughness in periodontal treatment. A clinical study. J Periodontol. 1983;54:365–7.
    1. Rylander H, Lindhe J. Cause related periodontal therapy. In: Lindhe J, Karring T, Lang NP, editors. Clinical periodontology and implant dentistry. 4th ed. Copenhagen: Blackwell Munksgaard; 2003. pp. 432–46.
    1. Rabbani GM, Ash MM, Caffesse RG. The effectiveness of subgingival scaling and root planing in calculus removal. J Periodontol. 1981;52:119–23.
    1. Dibart S, Capri D, Casavecchia P, Nunn M, Skobe Z. Comparison of the effectiveness of scaling and root planing in vivo using hand versus rotary instruments. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004;24:370–7.
    1. Kishida M, Sato S, Ito K. Effects of a new ultrasonic scaler on fibroblast attachment to root surfaces: A Scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Periodontol Res. 2004;39:111–9.
    1. Wirthin MR, Hancock EB. Biologic preparation of diseased root surfaces. J Periodontol. 1980;51:291–7.
    1. Wirthin MR, Hancock EB. Chemical treatment of diseased root surfaces in vitro. J Periodontol. 1981;52:694–6.
    1. Kenji T, Noriyuki A, Shigetaka H, Hiroshi M, Koichi I, Sedai M. Cell attachment and growth of the cultured cells to the smooth and rough surfaces of the dentin surface. J Jpn Soc Periodontol. 1987;29:859–69.
    1. Nyman S, Sarhed G, Ericsson I, Gottlov J, Karring T. Role of ‘diseased’ root cementum in healing following treatment of periodontal disease. An experimental study in the dog. J Periodontol Res. 1986;21:496–503.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다