Current concepts and advances in manual and power‐driven instrumentation

Oda, Shigeru; Nitta, Hiroshi; Setoguchi, Takashi; Izumi, Yoshinobu; Ishikawa, Isao

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0757.2004.03674.x

Cited by 80 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since several sulci and valleys were formed after instrumentation, an increase in the roughness also is observed (6)(7)(8). Some authors have discussed the negative influence of supragingival roughness on biofilm formation and mechanical plaque control by the patient (2). A literature review (20) concluded that the defects on root surface are protected against the removal forces, increase the difficult in performing oral hygiene.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Oda et al (2), in a literature review, has shown the contradictory findings of in vitro studies regarding calculus removal, mainly because of the strong differences in methodology and study designs. However, another literature review (1) concluded that manual and power-driven scaler (ultrasonics ad sonics) are equally effective in calculus removal, though these technique present different levels of tooth removal substance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies evaluating differences in the magnitude of root surface alterations produced by hand, sonic, and ultrasonic instruments are inconclusive (1)(2)(3). Considering manual and ultrasonic scalers, some reports indicate that manual scalers remove more root substance (4), whereas others found that ultrasonic scalers do so (2). At same time, root surface roughness after instrumentation is one of the most described alterations in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ultrasonic scaler and curettes are the instruments used for surgical and non-surgical periodontal therapy and have shown similar results as for biological response, plaque/calculus removal and elimination of endotoxin (1). Currently, the use of the ultrasonic scaler has appeared as an important alternative for daily clinical use due to its several advantages, such as access to furcation, less operator tiredness, pocket penetration and less time required for scaling and root planning (1,2). Studies evaluating differences in the magnitude of root surface alterations produced by hand, sonic, and ultrasonic instruments are inconclusive (1)(2)(3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, the use of the ultrasonic scaler has appeared as an important alternative for daily clinical use due to its several advantages, such as access to furcation, less operator tiredness, pocket penetration and less time required for scaling and root planning (1,2). Studies evaluating differences in the magnitude of root surface alterations produced by hand, sonic, and ultrasonic instruments are inconclusive (1)(2)(3). Considering manual and ultrasonic scalers, some reports indicate that manual scalers remove more root substance (4), whereas others found that ultrasonic scalers do so (2).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Root surface defect produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scaler with different power settings: an in vitro study

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the root surface defect produced by hand curettes and ultrasonic tips with different power settings. Forty root surfaces were divided into 4 groups according the treatment: Gracey curettes, ultrasonic scaler at 10% power, ultrasonic scaler at 50% power and ultrasonic scaler at 100% power. Each specimen was instrumented with 15 strokes and the and divided in the middle to evaluate: (1) the defect depth produced by the instrumentation and (2) contact area of the instrument tips, which was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. ANOVA and Tukey's test were used for statistical analysis (a=0.05). The results (mean ± SD) of the contact area showed significantly greater defects (p<0.05) for the hand instrumented groups (2092.9 ± 482) compared to the ultrasonic groups (606.8 ± 283.0; 858.6 ± 422.5; 1212.0 ± 366.7, respectively), independently of the power setting. The values for the defect depth on root surface showed no statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between hand instrumentation (66.1 ± 34.0) and ultrasonic scaling at 10%, 50% or 100% power settings (52.4 ± 22.1; 72.0 ± 29.9; 77.7 ± 37.7, respectively). The findings of this study demonstrate that ultrasonic instrumentation produced a similar defect depth to that of hand instrumentation, with a smaller tip contact area, independently of the power setting used for scaling.

show abstract