A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an <i>in vitro</i> study

Yousefimanesh, Hojatollah; Robati, Maryam; Kadkhodazadeh, Mahdi; Molla, Reza

doi:10.5051/jpis.2012.42.6.243

Cited by 15 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, at 45 • , the magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler applied with medium power resulted in a surface almost twice as smooth as the piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler applied with full power (MaM45 = 0.14 ± 0 µm and PiF45 = 0.27 ± 0 µm, respectively). These findings were in line with the studies suggesting different surface roughness results are due to differences in adjusted lateral force, tip angulation, and power settings [11,12,24,32]. On the other hand, in our study, the ultrasonic scaler type did not significantly influence surface roughness.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…On the other hand, in our study, the ultrasonic scaler type did not significantly influence surface roughness. This result was inconsistent with the limited number of comprehensive studies in the literature, particularly those comparing the surface roughness effects of the magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers suggesting differences are due to varying impacts [11,13]. Busslinger et al [13] reported that the piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler was more efficient than the magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler in eliminating calculus but left the instrumented surface rougher.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Busslinger et al [13] reported that the piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler was more efficient than the magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler in eliminating calculus but left the instrumented surface rougher. On the contrary, Yousefimanesh et al [11] demonstrated that, under the same forces, a piezoelectric scaler created smoother surfaces than a magnetostrictive device. These inconsistent results, which differed from those of our study, might be due to variances in application durations and forces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When we focused on the impacts of different ultrasonic instruments frequently used by professionals, we also found contradictory results. Yousefimanesh et al [11] reported that piezoelectric scalers left smoother root surfaces than magnetostrictive scalers under the same forces. Flemmig et al [12] also reported that a magnetostrictive device was more aggressive than a piezoelectric device on root surfaces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Root Surface Wear and Roughness Resulted from Different Ultrasonic Scalers and Polishing Devices Applied on Human Teeth: An In-Vitro Study

Mahiroglu

Kahramanoğlu

et al. 2020

Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to compare the root surface wear and roughness, resulted from the professional dental hygiene instruments, including ultrasonic dental scalers, rubber prophy cups, and nylon bristle brushes, on the extracted human mandibular incisor teeth. Teeth (n = 80) were randomly assigned into eight groups according to the applied scaler type (Ma = Magnetostrictive, Pi = Piezoelectric), degree of power (M = Medium, F = Full), and angulation (0 • and 45 • ). In the second stage, the specimens (n = 40) were further divided into two groups according to the applied polishing device (nylon bristle brush or rubber prophy cup). Laser scanner and contact profilometer devices were used for the surface analysis. Both ultrasonic instruments tested in our study produced rougher surfaces when full power was used at a 0 • angle (p < 0.01). The highest wear (0.82 ± 0.07 mm 3 ) and roughness values (0.30 ± 0.01 µm) were detected in the PiF0 group. Polishing performed with a rubber prophy cup resulted in almost twice the wear as well as a smoother surface when compared to polishing performed with a nylon bristle brush (p < 0.001). Variations in the application parameters of ultrasonic scalers and the type of polishing instrument might lead to significantly different root-surface characteristics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Root Surface Wear and Roughness Resulted from Different Ultrasonic Scalers and Polishing Devices Applied on Human Teeth: An In-Vitro Study

Mahiroglu

Kahramanoğlu

et al. 2020

Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Powerdriven scalers should be used carefully because of the risks for both the patient and dentist/hygienist (Gorrel 2004;Niemiec 2013). Most studies consider magnetostrictive and piezoelectric scalers to be equal or only marginally different with respect to risks (Yousefimanesh 2012), although sonic scalers are sometimes considered to be less dangerous (Caiafa 2007). In vitro studies indicate that the scaler tips produce heat which could be dangerous for the vitality of the dental pulp (Lea et al 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional optical assessment of experimental iatrogenic mechanical damage to canine dental enamel caused by a sonic scaler

Janalík¹,

Fichtel²,

Šperka³

et al. 2014

Vet. Med. - Czech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:Removal of dental calculus deposits is one of the basic parts of professional dental cleaning. Despite the popularity of power-driven scalers, several risks are associated with their use, mechanical damage of the enamel surface being one of the most important. The present study evaluated enamel damage caused by a sonic scaler in different work patterns to quantify the damage and allow a clear comparison. Seventy-five canine teeth were carefully extracted from twenty-three dogs. The scaler was used on a clean surface with several combinations of time (five to twenty seconds) and parts of the scaler (point vs. side of the tip). Subsequently, damaged surface topography was mapped using three-dimensional optical microscopy. The results revealed a high variance in defect depth which was influenced by both factors. Statistical assessment confirmed highly significant (P < 0.001) or at least significant (P < 0.05) differences in data acquired for each group. As expected, the shallowest defects were produced by the scaler side in the shortest experimental period (five seconds). Point use proved to be quite damaging, as it resulted in approximately four times higher median values than the side in the same timeframe. Therefore, it is crucial to follow all safety precautions when handling a power-driven scaler even during routine treatments. Use of the side of the tip and constant movement on the tooth surface are essential to reduce the risk of enamel damage.

show abstract

In vitro comparison of root surface roughness and bacterial adhesion following treatment with three different instruments

Haroon

Gregory

Hara

et al. 2021

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A novel device, piezoelectric 11 Gracey curet tip, reportedly combines benefits of a piezoelectric device and manual curet. The primary objective of this study was to compare root surface roughness outcomes between traditional manual curets and piezoelectric devices, as compared with this novel device. The secondary aim was to assess the level of adhesion of Streptococcus mutans on the root surface after instrumentation. Methods:The groups consisted of the following: 1) Gracey curet; 2) piezoelectric scaler; 3) piezoelectric 11 Gracey curet tip; and 4) untreated control. Root specimens were obtained from extracted human teeth and randomly assigned to each group. Surface roughness measurements (Ra and Rz) were taken with a profilometer before and after instrumentation. After instrumentation, root specimens were inoculated with S. mutans and biofilm was dislodged. Various dilutions of resuspended biofilm were incubated on blood agar plates and colony forming units (CFU) values were measured. Results: The experimental device resulted in significantly lower Ra and Rz compared with other groups (P < 0.01), and the Gracey curet was significantly lower than the piezoelectric tip and untreated control (P < 0.05). The Gracey curet and experimental device tip had significantly lower CFU values compared with the control (P < 0.05). There were no significant CFU value differences between the Gracey curet and both the piezoelectric and experimental device tips. There were no significant CFU differences between piezoelectric tip and both experimental device and control. There was no correlation between Ra and CFU values for Gracey curet, piezoelectric tip, or the control. However, correlation between Ra values and CFU approached significance for the experimental device (correlation = 0.66, P = 0.05). Conclusions: Piezoelectric 11 Gracey curet tip is effective at resulting in a significantly smoother surface compared with traditional piezoelectric and hand instruments. CFU values with piezoelectric 11 Gracey curet tip were significantly

show abstract

A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study

Cited by 15 publications

References 13 publications

Comparison of Root Surface Wear and Roughness Resulted from Different Ultrasonic Scalers and Polishing Devices Applied on Human Teeth: An In-Vitro Study

Comparison of Root Surface Wear and Roughness Resulted from Different Ultrasonic Scalers and Polishing Devices Applied on Human Teeth: An In-Vitro Study

Three-dimensional optical assessment of experimental iatrogenic mechanical damage to canine dental enamel caused by a sonic scaler

In vitro comparison of root surface roughness and bacterial adhesion following treatment with three different instruments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About