Removal of simulated biofilm: a preclinical ergonomic comparison of instruments and operators

Graetz, Christian; Plaumann, Anna; Rauschenbach, Sebastian; Bielfeldt, Jule; Dörfer, Christof E.; Schwendicke, Falk

doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1605-2

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, in this study, power-driven instruments led to significantly better results than manual curettes. In a previous study, Graetz et al [ 21 ] observed that practitioners handling power-driven instruments work more ergonomically than those using hand instruments, irrespective of the operator’s level of experience. In addition to that, the use of hand instruments was described as more tiresome and demanding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Sex-Specific Evaluation of Dental Students’ Ability to Perform Subgingival Debridement: Randomized Trial

Frank¹,

Jennrich²,

Kanzow³

et al. 2023

JMIR Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A successful periodontitis treatment demands good manual skills. A correlation between biological sex and dental students’ manual dexterity is currently unknown. Objective This study examines performance differences between male and female students within subgingival debridement. Methods A total of 75 third-year dental students were divided by biological sex (male/female) and randomly assigned to one of two work methods (manual curettes n=38; power-driven instruments n=37). Students were trained on periodontitis models for 25 minutes daily over 10 days using the assigned manual or power-driven instrument. Practical training included subgingival debridement of all tooth types on phantom heads. Practical exams were performed after the training session (T1) and after 6 months (T2), and comprised subgingival debridement of four teeth within 20 minutes. The percentage of debrided root surface was assessed and statistically analyzed using a linear mixed-effects regression model (P<.05). Results The analysis is based on 68 students (both groups n=34). The percentage of cleaned surfaces was not significantly different (P=.40) between male (mean 81.6%, SD 18.2%) and female (mean 76.3%, SD 21.1%) students, irrespective of the instrument used. The use of power-driven instruments (mean 81.3%, SD 20.5%) led to significantly better results than the use of manual curettes (mean 75.4%, SD 19.4%; P=.02), and the overall performance decreased over time (T1: mean 84.5%, SD 17.5%; T2: mean 72.3%, SD 20.8%; P<.001). Conclusions Female and male students performed equally well in subgingival debridement. Therefore, sex-differentiated teaching methods are not necessary.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Sex-Specific Evaluation of Dental Students’ Ability to Perform Subgingival Debridement: Randomized Trial

Frank¹,

Jennrich²,

Kanzow³

et al. 2023

JMIR Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The only scientific proven advantage of (ultra)sonic instrumentation is that it is time saving and less labor intensive [8]. It is 20% to 50% faster than hand instrumentation [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and leads to less wrist deviation and inclination of head and neck (potentially leading to musculoskeletal problems) [16]. Additionally, hand instruments are also experienced as more tiring than (ultra) sonic instruments [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instrumentation during the second stage of periodontal therapy: a European survey

Laleman

Seidel²,

Gagnot³

et al. 2022

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To gather practice-based information about instrumentation during the second stage of periodontal therapy among the members of the European Federation of Periodontology. Methods This survey was conducted to investigate periodontal instrumentation (e.g., frequency, instruments, their maintenance) during the second stage of periodontal therapy. Results Questionnaires from 2008 responders actively involved in periodontal therapy (general dental practitioners, periodontists, and dental hygienists) were analyzed. The frequency of use of hand and mechanical instruments was similar during the second stage of periodontal therapy and 94.4% of the participants combined both. The most popular hand instruments were Gracey curettes, and the preferred mechanical devices were ultrasonic scalers. For the latter, mostly the combination of standard and micro/slim inserts was preferred (42.4%) over solely standard inserts (32.1%) or micro/slim inserts (25.5%). The wear of hand instruments was sytematically checked by 46.1% of the respondents and the wear of the inserts by 41.3%. The more experienced the dental professional, the more frequent the wear of the instruments and inserts was checked. ConclusionThe most popular periodontal instrumentation technique in clinical practice during the second stage of periodontal therapy is a combination of hand and mechanical instruments. Clinical relevance Clinicians should check the wear of their instruments systematically to have the most performant instruments possible for periodontal instrumentation. Scientists should see the results of this questionnaire as an incentive to set up studies investigating whether the combination of hand and mechanical instruments, the preferred treatment method of clinicians, is better than either of these instruments alone.

show abstract

How to train periodontal endoscopy? Results of a pilot study removing simulated hard deposits in vitro

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Removal of simulated biofilm: a preclinical ergonomic comparison of instruments and operators

Abstract: The use of hand instruments has potential ergonomic disadvantages. However, with increasing experience, operators are able to recognise and mitigate possible risks.

Cited by 6 publications

References 31 publications

A Sex-Specific Evaluation of Dental Students’ Ability to Perform Subgingival Debridement: Randomized Trial

A Sex-Specific Evaluation of Dental Students’ Ability to Perform Subgingival Debridement: Randomized Trial

Instrumentation during the second stage of periodontal therapy: a European survey

How to train periodontal endoscopy? Results of a pilot study removing simulated hard deposits in vitro

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About