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

Abstract

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)

In vitro evaluation of surface roughness, adhesion of periodontal ligament fibroblasts, and Streptococcus gordonii following root instrumentation with Gracey curettes and subsequent polishing with diamond-coated curettes

“…The last findings are in contrast to other reports where no difference between hand and ultrasonic instrumentation [17,22] was found or less attachment if the ultrasonic treatment without polishing was used [22]. The attachment rate did not also differ between using rotary instruments and hand scaling [11]. Our study has clearly shown an influence of surface properties on cell attachment.…”

“…This allowed for an instrumentation which more closely mimicked the in vivo situation compared with studies where test teeth were incorporated into a plastic block [9] or where roots alone were used [6]. The Ra and Rz values obtained in the present study are somewhat lower than those reported before [9], but on the other hand, they are in line with the results obtained by others [11]. It has to be kept in mind that our study did not focus on removal of deposits but aimed to determine the effect of the additional use of a diamond-coated curette on root surface properties.…”

In vitro evaluation of a novel biofilm remover

“…Scanning electron microscope studies concentrating on the quality of the instrumented surface achieved seem to support their use (11,24,25). While the findings from these studies have been mostly qualitative (SEM analysis) or semi-quantitative (RLTSI, Roughness and Loss of Tooth Substance Index), one study (11) also provided quantitative (profilometric) data showing no significant difference in surface roughness between a diamond-coated bur and Gracey curettes.…”

“…In the 2002 review by Cobb, evidence is provided showing that scaling/root planing and the use of ultrasonic instruments remove/miss similar amounts of calculus and biofilm, with the ultrasonics providing these results while consuming less time. In later studies (11), which also examined rotary instruments, these instruments provided a visually smooth surface with less surface roughness than Gracey curettes. However, in none of these studies was the root surface left undisturbed.…”

Comparative assessment of fluorosed and nonfluorosed fibroblast attachment on fluorosed and nonfluorosed teeth after scaling and root planning and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid root biomodification

“…The cell attachment on to the surface of the treated root fragments of all the groups at 72 h period was observed in a stereomicroscope [32,33] (MAGNUS Model MSZ-BI Stereo zoom microscope) at 20 mm focal length under ×100 magnification and cell counting was performed.…”