Tooth substance loss resulting from mechanical, sonic and ultrasonic root instrumentation assessed by liquid scintillation

Schmidlin, P. R.; Beuchat, M.; Busslinger, A.; Lehmann, B.; Lutz, F

doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.2001.281111.x

Cited by 46 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study used root specimens instrumented with hand curettes, because the roughness data of untreated roots would have shown a much bigger variability. After ultrasonic instrumentation an increase in roughness was found throughout the specimens, which is in agreement with the results found by Schmidlin et al [25]. In this study the hand curette is used as the gold standard of debridement techniques, which achieves a mean Ra of 0.60 on bovine dentine, whereas the instrumentation with the magnetostrictive ultrasonic device (Cavitron / Slimline) results in a mean Ra of 0.90.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

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

show abstract

“…Eight dentin samples of each group were not subjected to erosion and were desiccated for 4 weeks in blue silica gel 20,21 in a vacuum evaporator directly after treatment with the respective fluoride solution. EDS measurement was performed in six specimens of each group.…”

Section: X-ray Energy-dispersive Spectroscopy and Scanning Electron Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

TiF4 and NaF at pH 1.2 but not at pH 3.5 are able to reduce dentin erosion

Wiegand

Magalhães²,

Sener

et al. 2009

Archives of Oral Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyse and compare the protective effect of buffered (pH 3.5) and native (pH 1.2) TiF(4) in comparison to NaF solutions of same pH on dentin erosion. DESIGN: Bovine samples were pretreated with 1.50% TiF(4) or 2.02% NaF (both 0.48M F) solutions, each with a pH of 1.2 and 3.5. The control group received no fluoride pretreatment. Ten samples in each group were eroded with HCl (pH 2.6) for 10x60s. Erosion was analysed by determination of calcium release into the acid. Additionally, the surface and the elemental surface composition were examined by scanning electron microscopy (two samples in each group) and X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy in fluoridated but not eroded samples (six samples in each group). Cumulative calcium release (nmol/mm(2)) was statistically analysed by repeated measures ANOVA and one-way ANOVA at t=10min. RESULTS: TiF(4) and NaF at pH 1.2 decreased calcium release significantly, while TiF(4) and NaF at pH 3.5 were not effective. Samples treated with TiF(4) at pH 1.2 showed a significant increase of Ti, while NaF pretreatment increased F concentration significantly. TiF(4) at pH 1.2 led to the formation of globular precipitates occluding dentinal tubules, which could not be observed on samples treated with TiF(4) at pH 3.5. NaF at pH 1.2 but not at pH 3.5 induced the formation of surface precipitates covering dentinal tubules. CONCLUSION: Dentin erosion can be significantly reduced by TiF(4) and NaF at pH 1.2, but not at pH 3.5.1 TiF 4 and NaF at pH 1.2 but not at pH 3.5 are able to reduce dentin erosion Objective: This study aimed to analyse and compare the protective effect of buffered (pH 3.5) and native (pH 1.2) TiF 4 in comparison to NaF solutions of same pH on dentin erosion.Design: Bovine samples were pretreated with 1.50% TiF 4 or 2.02% NaF (both 0.48 M F) solutions, each with a pH of 1.2 and 3.5. The control group received no fluoride pretreatment.Ten samples in each group were eroded with HCl (pH 2.6) for 10 x 60s. Erosion was analysed by determination of calcium release into the acid. Additionally, the surface and the elemental surface composition were examined by scanning electron microscopy (two samples in each group) and X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy in fluoridated but not eroded samples (six samples in each group). Cumulative calcium release (nmol/mm 2 ) was statistically analysed by repeated measures ANOVA and one-way ANOVA at t = 10 min.Results: TiF 4 and NaF at pH 1.2 decreased calcium release significantly, while TiF 4 and NaF at pH 3.5 were not effective. Samples treated with TiF 4 at pH 1.2 showed a significant increase of Ti, while NaF pretreatment increased F concentration significantly. TiF 4 at pH 1.2 led to the formation of globular precipitates occluding dentinal tubules, which could not be observed on samples treated with TiF 4 at pH 3.5. NaF at pH 1.2 but not at pH 3.5 induced the formation of surface precipitates covering dentinal tubules.Conclusion: Dentin erosion can be significantly reduced by TiF 4 and NaF at p...

show abstract

“…The RLTSI evaluates roughness and substance loss concomitantly. However, the loss of tooth substance with the use of a specific instrument cannot be directly correlated with the roughness produced on root surface (3,9), needing a separate evaluation (9).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Tooth substance loss resulting from mechanical, sonic and ultrasonic root instrumentation assessed by liquid scintillation

Cited by 46 publications

References 25 publications

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

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

TiF4 and NaF at pH 1.2 but not at pH 3.5 are able to reduce dentin erosion

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About