Comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: A scanning electron microscopy study

Parveen Dahiya, Reet Kamal, Rajan Gupta, Nymphea Pandit, Parveen Dahiya, Reet Kamal, Rajan Gupta, Nymphea Pandit

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare root surface characteristics following root planing with various hand- and power-driven instruments.

Materials and methods: A total of 20 single, rooted teeth were used in this study; two specimens were used as control (no instrumentation done) and the remaining 18 specimens were equally divided into three groups. Specimens from each group were then subjected to root planing by one of the following instruments: (1) a Gracey curette, (2) ultrasonic tip and (3) a Rotary bur. In each case, the time required for scaling and root planing and surface roughness using the Roughness and Loss of Tooth Substance Index (RLTSI) was measured.

Result: The mean RLTSI scores for the Gracey curette, ultrasonic and rotary instrument groups were 2.5, 2.0 and 0.667, respectively. The mean scores of time spent for scaling and root planing by the Gracey curette, ultrasonic and rotary instrument groups in seconds were 42.50, 35.83 and 54.50, respectively.

Conclusions: All the three instruments, namely Gracey curette, ultrasonic tip and rotary bur, were effective in mechanical debridement of the root surface. The results favored the use of rotary instruments for root planing to achieve a smooth, clean root surface; however, the use of rotary instrument was more time consuming, which might limit its use in clinical practice.

Keywords: Gracey curette; periodontal disease; root planing; scaling; ultrasonic tip.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Morphology of the root surface of the control specimen (scanning electron microscopy photograph, ×100)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Morphology of the root surface of the control specimen (scanning electron microscopy photograph, ×500)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Morphology of the root surface planed with curette (scanning electron microscopy photograph, ×100)
Figure 4
Figure 4
Morphology of the root surface planed with curette (scanning electron microscopy photograph, ×500)
Figure 5
Figure 5
Morphology of the root surface planed with the ultrasonic instrument (scanning electron microscopy photograph, ×100)
Figure 6
Figure 6
Morphology of the root surface planed with the ultrasonic instrument (scanning electron microscopy photograph, ×500)
Figure 7
Figure 7
Morphology of the root surface planed with a rotary bur (scanning electron microscopy photograph, ×100)
Figure 8
Figure 8
Morphology of the root surface planed with a rotary bur (scanning electron microscopy photograph, ×500)

References

    1. Sbordone L, Ramaglia L, Gulletta E, Iacono V. Recolonization of subginvial microflora after scaling and root planing in human Periodontitis. J Periodontol. 1990;61:579–84.
    1. Rabbani GM, Ash MM, Jr, Caffesse RG. The effectiveness of subgingival and root planing in calculus removal. J Periodontol. 1981;52:119–23.
    1. Moskow BS, Bressman E. Cemental response to ultrasonic and hand instrumentations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1972;68:698–703.
    1. Rylander H, Lindhe J. Cause related periodontal therapy. In: Lindhe J, Karring T, Lang NP, editors. Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 1997. pp. 432–47.
    1. Lie T, Laknes KN. Evaluation of the effect on root surface of air turbine scalers and ultrasonic instrumentation. J Periodontol. 1985;56:522–13.
    1. Allen EF, Rhoads RH. Effect of high-speed periodontal instruments on tooth surface. J Periodontol. 1963;34:352–60.
    1. Ellman IA. Comparative safety of the rotosonic scaler and the curette. J Periodontol. 1964;35:410–7.
    1. Moskow BS, Bressmann E. Cemental Response to ultrasonic and hand instrumentation. J Am Dent Asso. 1963;68:698–703.
    1. Ewen SJ, Gwinnett AJ. A scanning electron microscopic study of teeth following periodontal instrumentation. J Periodontol. 1977;48:92–7.
    1. Wilkinson RF, Maybury JE. Scanning electron microscopy of the root surface following instrumentation. J Periodontol. 1973;44:559–63.
    1. Chen SK, Vesley D, Brosseau LM, Vincent JH. Evaluation of single use masks and respirators for protection of health care workers against mycobacterial aerosols. Am J Infect Control. 1994;22:65–74.
    1. Clark S, Group H, Mabler D. The effect of ultrasonic instrumentation on root surfaces. J Periodontol. 1968;39:125–32.
    1. Garrett JS. Effects of non-surgical periodontal therapy on Periodontitis in humans. A review. J Clin Periodontol. 1983;10:515–21.
    1. Dragoo MR. A clinical evaluation of hand and ultrasonic instruments on subgingival debridement. Part I with unmodified and modified ultrasonic inserts. Int J Periodontol. 1992;12:311–7.
    1. Drisko CL. Scaling and root planing without over instrumentation: Hand versus poser – driven scalers. Curr Opin Periodontol. 1993;3:78–84.
    1. Jacobson L, Blomlof J. Root surface texture after different scaling modalities. Scan J dent Res. 1994;102:156–60.
    1. Lie T, Mayer K. Calculus removal and loss of tooth substances in response to different periodontal instruments. J Clin Periodontol. 1977;4:250–62.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다