Cemental Response to ultrasonic and hand instrumentation

Moskow, Bernard S.; Bressman, Edward

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1964.0143

Cited by 65 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using SEM, the same conclusion was reached by Allen & Rhoads (1963), Belting & Spjut (1964), Björn & Lindhe (1962), Cross‐Poline et al (1995), Gantes et al (1992), Garnick & Dent (1989), Hunter et al (1984), Pameijer et al (1972), and Wilkinson & Maybury (1973). However, D’Silva et al (1979), Ewen & Gwinnett (1977) and Moskov et al (1964) found just the opposite. Jotikasthira et al (1992) and Jones et al (1972) demonstrated that sonic scalers leave a rougher surface than do ultrasonic instruments, while Lie & Leknes (1985) found that sonic scalers produce about the same degree of roughness as ultrasonic instruments do.…”

supporting

confidence: 64%

Subgingival polishing with a teflon‐coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth

Kocher

Rosin

Langenbeck

et al. 2001

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 64%

Subgingival polishing with a teflon‐coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth

Kocher

Rosin

Langenbeck

et al. 2001

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ultrasonic instruments are simple to use, but it is often difficult to achieve smooth and calculus-free root surface. [3]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dahiya¹,

Kamal²,

Gupta³

et al. 2011

Contemp Clin Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Consequently, ultrasonic scalers have become more widely used in recent years. Although they are simpler to use, it is often difficult to achieve a smooth and calculus-free root surface (9)(10)(11), and dental plaque adheres more readily to the roughened root surfaces created by the use of an ultrasonic scaler (12). To overcome these challenges associated with use of ultrasonic scalers and hand scalers, rotary instruments for scaling and root planning have been developed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

Cemental Response to ultrasonic and hand instrumentation

Cited by 65 publications

References 8 publications

Subgingival polishing with a teflon‐coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth

Subgingival polishing with a teflon‐coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About