The piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler was more efficient than the magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler in removing calculus but left the instrumented tooth surface rougher.

It can be concluded that this method can reveal very precisely small quantities of substance lost and, in combination with SEM analysis and microroughness measurements, be of considerable value in evaluating the aggressiveness and efficacy of periodontal instruments.

Aims: This study investigated the loss of tooth substance (μg) by means of liquid scintillation in combination with profilometric and SEM analyses in order to evaluate the roughness and morphological changes of the root surface before and after instrumentation. Method: 40 polished and irradiated bovine root surfaces were scaled in vitro while covered with 50 ml destilled water using a sonic prototype (Periosonic® 1/2), a magnetostrictive ultrasonic (Cavitron® with Slimline® inserts) scaler and a hand curette. Pressures were applied for the Periosonic, Cavitron and hand curette at 500, 500 and 30 g respectively, for 30‐s intervals, up to 120 s. Loss of apatite (μg) was determined from the decays/min (32P) of the water samples using the radiochemical method of liquid scintilation. Replicas were made of the specimens for SEM and profilometric analyses. Results: The least substance loss was noted significantly (p<0.01) at all time intervals after Slimline, followed by the fine sonic prototype Periosonic 2, then the Periosonic 1 and finally the hand curette. In contrast, profilometric and SEM analyses revealed the smoothest root surfaces after the hand curette, whereas Cavitron produced a less smooth surface. Conclusion: It can be concluded that this method can reveal very precisely small quantities of substance lost and, in combination with SEM analysis and microroughness measurements, be of considerable value in evaluating the aggressiveness and efficacy of periodontal instruments.

This clinical study demonstrated that Periosonic(R) instruments are clinically at least as effective as curettes in PPD reduction when initial PPD is < or =6 mm and show better clinical attachment level improvement with less recession for initial PPD of > or =7 mm.

Clinical comparison of the effectiveness of novel sonic instruments and curettes for periodontal debridement after 2 months.Abstract Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the effectiveness of scaling and root planing of new oscillating instruments (Periosonic A ) using a sonic handpiece compared to hand curettes with a split mouth design after 2 months. Methods: 11 patients with adult periodontitis participated in this study. Plaque index (PII) (O'Leary), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD), recession (REC) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded at baseline and 2 months after treatment. After oral hygiene instruction, 2 randomly assigned quadrants per patient were scaled and root planed with curettes (control side) and the remaining 2 quadrants with the Periosonic A instruments 1 and 2 (test side). The student t-test for paired data was used to test the significance of difference between test and control sides. Results: There was no statistical difference (pϾ0.05) between the 2 sides for the improvement of the clinical parameters excepted for the group with initial PPD of 4-6 mm (test: 1.3∫0.4 mm PPD reduction, control: 1.6∫0.4 mm). For PPD у7 mm, the test side had better clinical improvement in attachment levels (2.2∫0.9 mm), less recession (ª0.4∫0.5 mm) with lower PPD reduction (2.4∫0.6 mm) than the control side (AL: 1.6∫1.8 mm; REC: ª1.3∫0.7 mm, PPD reduction: 3.0∫1.4 mm). Conclusion:This clinical study demonstrated that Periosonic A instruments are hand curettes; periodontal debridement; split clinically at least as effective as curettes in PPD reduction when initial PPD is mouth design р6 mm and show better clinical attachment level improvement with less recession for initial PPD of у7 mm.