Clinical comparison of the effectiveness of novel sonic instruments and curettes for periodontal debridement after 2 months

Abstract

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.

Periodontal healing after non‐surgical therapy with a modified sonic scaler: a controlled clinical trial

“…Both treatment methods were similarly effective in PPD reduction and CAL gain. These results are in accordance with data reported in different recent meta-analyses (Tunkel et al 2002 Beuchat et al (2001) showed a greater PPD reduction in deep periodontal pockets with another sonic scaler (Periosonic: 2.4 mm versus S/RP: 3.0 mm). Loos et al (1989) found a PPD reduction of 2.3 mm in their study.…”

Treating periodontitis-a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ultrasonic and manual subgingival scaling at different probing pocket depths

“…Characteristics of articles selected for secondary outcomes appear in Table 2. Reasons for study exclusion appear in Table 3 [5,6,10,.…”

“…For example, Beuchat found that when initial PPD < 6 mm, for gingival recession (GR), there was no statistical difference between ultrasonic and manual subgingival scaling (P < 0.05). When initial PPD > 7 mm, attachment level (AL) improved more while GR reduced more in using ultrasonic instruments than using manual instruments [10]. It is controversial in terms of when to use manual subgingival instruments and when to use ultrasonic ones.…”

Effects of Ultrasonic Debridement on Oral Hygiene Status

“…Ultrasonic debridement (UD) has been extensively reported in the literature and is a primary procedure in the provision of professional oral prophylaxis 5,14) . Professional oral prophylaxis should be as nonaggressive as possible, however, so there are a number of procedures available to suit the oral health of the individual concerned 2) .…”