Comparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surface in vivo

Santos, Fábio André dos; Pochapski, Márcia Thaís; Leal, Paola Cristina; Gimenes-Sakima, Patrícia Panizzi; Marcantonio, Élcio

doi:10.1007/s00784-007-0167-3

Cited by 39 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Only the comparison between the C200 and P200 groups was significant. In contrast to our study, Santos et al [13] showed that under SEM, there were no differences between the results of the magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices. The main reasons for such differences are the methodology used such as an in vitro or in vivo study, the use of different tips, the power setting, and the time and load of the instrument.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…The relationship between the force and defect volume caused by ultrasonic instruments was confirmed by Flemming et al [12], and in this study we chose ultrasonic application forces of 100 g and 200 g. By controlling the force, the relationship between the force and tooth roughness could be evaluated using a digital pressure sensitive device [13]. A SEM was used to evaluate the tooth roughness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Yousefimanesh

Robati

Kadkhodazadeh

et al. 2012

J Periodontal Implant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe effects of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on tooth surfaces seem to differ with regard to the root surface roughness they produce. This study aimed to compare the results of scaling using magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on extracted teeth.MethodsForty-four human extracted teeth were assigned to four study groups (n=11). In two groups (C100 and C200), the teeth were scaled using a magnetostrictive device and two different lateral forces: 100 g and 200 g, respectively. In the other two groups (P100 and P200), the teeth were scaled with a piezoelectric device with 100 g and 200 g of lateral force, respectively. he teeth were scaled and the data on the duration of scaling and the amount of surface were collected and analyzed using the t-test.ResultsThe mean time needed for instrumentation for the piezoelectric and magnetostrictive devices was 50:54 and 41:10, respectively, but their difference was not statistically significant (P=0.171). For root surface roughness, we only found a statistically significantly poorer result for the C200 group in comparison to the P200 group (P=0.033).ConclusionsThis study revealed that applying a piezoelectric scaler with 200 g of lateral force leaves smoother surfaces than a magnetostrictive device with the same lateral force.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Yousefimanesh

Robati

Kadkhodazadeh

et al. 2012

J Periodontal Implant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in contrast with other studies that compared standard area‐specific curets versus standard tip mounted on machine‐driven instruments and that showed that curets can create deep grooves and remove sound tooth substance from tooth surface when compared with machine‐driven instruments (Santos, Pochapski, Leal, Gimenes‐Sakima, & Marcantonio, ).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 91%

The effect of miniaturized manual versus mechanical instruments on calculus removal and root surface characteristics: An in vitro light microscopic study

Profili¹,

Sparabombe

Smith

et al. 2019

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate by light microscopy analysis the effect of the use of miniaturised piezoelectric tips versus mini‐five area specific curets on calculus removal and postoperative root surface alterations.MethodsA total of 20 extracted teeth were used. Two square surfaces (5×5 mm) were marked on each root surface with a diamond bur mounted on a high‐speed handpiece. Before and after instrumentation, a series of magnified images (4.2×) of each experimental surface were taken with a standardized approach. According to a randomization list, the two surfaces on each sample were instrumented in a standardised fashion either with a mine‐five curet or a slim piezoelectric tip. The images were processed using an imaging software. Data were summarised as means and standard deviations for the two outcomes (calculus and alterations.) at each time (pre and post) for both of the groups (manual and mechanical).ResultsBoth manual and mechanical instrumentation significantly reduced the calculus deposits (p < .001) without significant differences between the two groups. Both manual and mechanical treatments significantly increased alterations (p < .01). There was a statistically significant evidence of a greater increase in alterations from mechanical treatment.ConclusionsSlim mechanical piezoelectric tips and manual mini‐five area‐specific curets have similar effects on calculus removal. Manual instrumentation results in a more homogeneous postoperative root surface with less root alterations.

show abstract

“…Another study by Santos et al [26], however, contradicts these findings. This in vivo comparison found significantly rougher surfaces after hand curette treatment than after ultrasonic treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

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

Comparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surface in vivo

Cited by 39 publications

References 31 publications

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

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

The effect of miniaturized manual versus mechanical instruments on calculus removal and root surface characteristics: An in vitro light microscopic study

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About