An in vitro investigation on the loss of root substance in scaling with various instruments

Ritz, L; Hefti, Arthur F.; Rateitschak, Klaus H.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.1991.tb00104.x

Cited by 130 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the cementum formation exists as a superficial layer on the root and is easily peeled off by intensive root planing during the treatment of periodontal diseases or by toothbrushing 27) . The vulnerability of the cementum layer causes the underlying dentin to be prone to exposure, hence increasing the risk of dentin hypersensitivity and root dentin caries formation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance of dentin coating materials against abrasion by toothbrush

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thin-film coating of root dentin surface by all-in-one adhesives has been shown to be an effective option to prevent root surface caries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the wear resistance against toothbrush abrasion of two all-in-one coating materials; Shield Force (SF) and Hybrid Coat (HC). Bovine dentin surfaces were covered with one of the coating materials; SF or HC. After storage in water for 24 h, the testing surface was subjected to the toothbrush abrasion test up to 50,000 cycles either in water or toothpaste slurry. The remaining thickness of the coating material was measured using SEM. Toothpaste slurry significantly increased rate of tooth brush abrasion of the coating materials. While SF and HC wore at a similar pace under toothbrush abrasion, SF had a thicker coat and could protect dentin longer, up to 50,000 cycles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance of dentin coating materials against abrasion by toothbrush

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The specimens were divided into four groups (Root Burnisher, Perio Planing Bur, Tooth Planing Bur, and Gracey Scaler group), each containing 20 specimens. Scaling and root planing were performed with water cooling at 0.98 N (100-gf) pressure for the Root Burnisher and Perio Planing Bur groups, 0.49 N (50-gf) pressure for the Tooth Planing Bur group and 4.90 N (500-gf) pressure for the Gracey Scaler group with the samples mounted on a force gauge (DPX-5T, Imada, Tokyo, Japan) (20,21). Rotation speed was 20,000 rpm with the use of the Root Burnisher or Perio Planing Bur, and 300,000 rpm with the use of the Tooth Planing Bur (16).…”

Section: Preparation Of Specimensmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the effects of various periodontal rotary instruments on surface characteristics of root surface

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficacy of scaling and root planing using various periodontal rotary instruments was examined. Eighty extracted human teeth with a history of periodontal disease were divided into four groups of 20 and subjected to one of the following procedures: Use of 1) a Root Burnisher, 2) a Perio Planing Bur (both rotating instruments for contra angle handpieces), 3) a Tooth Planing Bur (rotating instrument for use with an air turbine), or 4) a Gracey Scaler. In each case, the time required for cleaning was measured. Twenty healthy extracted human teeth were used as untreated controls. After treatment, the surface roughness of 10 specimens out of each group were measured using a profilometer and observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Half of the samples were then incubated in dishes with a suspension of fibroblasts. After counting the number of attached cells, the attachment of fibroblasts was observed by SEM. The root surfaces treated with the rotary instruments appeared smooth and there were no significant differences between groups. From the SEM observations, smooth root surfaces with different surface textures were evident and a tight attachment of fibroblasts was observed. The results of this study suggest that use of rotary instruments is superior for periodontal scaling and root planing. (J. Oral Sci. 46, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] 2004)

show abstract

“…This result is in accordance with the study of Flemmig and co-workers [13,14] who found that the applied lateral force had the greatest effect on the defect volume followed by the chosen power setting and the tip angulation. The study of Ritz et al [21] also found a more pronounced tooth substance loss with increasing instrumentation forces in the range of 100 -400 p was found. The latter study suggested a force of 100 p to be used for ultrasonic instruments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Cleaning ability and induced dentin loss of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic instrument at different power settings

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some laboratory studies have evaluated the oscillation mode of ultrasonic scalers. None of them recorded its influence on calculus removal and quantified dental hard tissue loss. This study aimed to compare the performance of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic instrument at different power settings in vitro in relation to the tip oscillation activity. The oscillation activity of the straight Slimline® insert in the Cavitron® ultrasonic scaling device was analyzed at five different power settings with the help of two laser vibrometers. The performance of this instrument was tested on 60 roots of human single-rooted teeth. Twelve roots each were randomly assigned to be instrumented at a given power setting. Every root was instrumented for 120 s at a standardized instrumentation force of 0.1 ± 0.05 N. In addition, another 30 periodontally involved roots with subgingival calculus were instrumented accordingly to assess the calculus removal potential. The surface characteristics after instrumentation were analyzed under scanning electron microscope. The instrumentation at minimum power setting resulted in an mean increase of the root surface roughness of 0.18 ± 0.28 compared to 0.51 ± 0.48 at maximum power setting (P = 0.0327). The loss of dental hard tissue amounted to 11.37 ± 3.64 at minimum compared to 23.37 ± 15.76 at maximum power (P = 0.0010). The higher the power setting, the more calculus was removed. The values of the latter ranged between 4.04 ± 1.87 and 11.26 ± 4.66 mm² of cleaned dentin surface area (P = 0.0065). At lower power settings, a more favorable relation between cleaning ability, loss of dentine, and surface roughness was found. cleaned dentin surface area (P=0.0065). At lower power settings, a more favourable relation between cleaning ability, loss of dentine and surface roughness was found.

show abstract

An in vitro investigation on the loss of root substance in scaling with various instruments

Cited by 130 publications

References 18 publications

Resistance of dentin coating materials against abrasion by toothbrush

Resistance of dentin coating materials against abrasion by toothbrush

Comparison of the effects of various periodontal rotary instruments on surface characteristics of root surface

Cleaning ability and induced dentin loss of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic instrument at different power settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About