The Effectiveness of Calculus Removal on Root Surfaces Instrumented with Three Ultrasonic Tips and a Hand Scaler, A Comparative in vitro Study
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of calculus removal on root surfaces instrumented with two piezoelectric tips (1S and curette H3) and a magnetostrictive tip (P10) compared with a hand scaler (Gracey curette 1-2)
Materials and methods: Sixty interproximal root surfaces with similarly sized bands of subgingival calculus were randomly assigned into four groups for four instrumentation techniques. They were scaled until clean as assessed by the naked eye and the time required was recorded as a unit of seconds. After treatment, all of the specimens were examined for Remaining Calculus Index (RCI) and Roughness and Loss of Tooth Substance Index (RLTSI) using scanning electron microscopy. Statistical analysis of the time required to remove calculus was based on a one-way ANOVA and the Tukey Test. The Kruskal Wallis Test was applied to test the differences in remaining calculus, roughness and loss of tooth substance.
Results: The 1S tip required the shortest time to clean the surface; the mean time was 98±0.43 seconds. The mean time for the H3 and P10 tips and the Gracey curette 1-2 were 234±1.06, 170±1.58 and 131±1.50 seconds, respectively. Statistically significant differences in time (p<0.05) were observed between 1S and H3. The remaining calculus, roughness and loss of tooth substance were not significantly different among the four groups. However, the 1S and H3 tips seemed to have similar effectiveness in calculus removal to that of the Gracey curette 1-2 but caused less damage to the root surface.
Conclusions: The 1S and H3 piezoelectric tips showed similar comparative effectiveness and effect on root surfaces to that of the P10 magnetostrictive tips and Gracy curettes 1-2.
1. Lang NP. Indications and rationale for nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Int Dent J 1983; 33: 127-136.
2. Eschler BM, Rapley JW. Mechanical and chemical root preparation in vitro: efficiency of plaque and calculus removal. J Periodontol 1991; 62: 755-760.
3. Lie T, Leknes KN. Evaluation of the effect on root surfaces of air turbine scalers and ultrasonic instrumentation. J Periodontol 1985; 56: 522-531.
4. Kepic TJ, O’Leary TJ, Kafrawy AH. Total calculus removal: an attainable objective? J Periodontol 1990; 61: 16-20.
5. Santos FA, Pochapski MT, Leal PC, GimenesSakima PP, Marcantonio E, Jr. Comparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surface in vivo. Clin Oral Investig 2008; 12: 143-150.
6. Drisko CL. Scaling and root planing without overinstrumentation: hand versus powerdriven scalers. Current Opinion in Periodontol 1993: 78-88.
7. Dragoo MR. A clinical evaluation of hand and ultrasonic instruments on subgingival debridement. 1. With unmodified and modified ultrasonic inserts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1992; 12: 310-323.
8. Kocher T, Plagmann HC. The diamond-coated sonic scaler tip. Part II: Loss of substance and alteration of root surface texture after different scaling modalities. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1997; 17: 484-493.
9. Drisko CL, Cochran DL, Blieden T, et al. Position paper: sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontics. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol 2000; 71: 1792- 1801.
10. Scott JB, Steed-Veilands AM, Yukna RA. Improved efficacy of calculus removal in furcations using ultrasonic diamond-coated inserts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1999; 19: 355-361.
11. Clifford LR, Needleman IG, Chan YK. Comparison of periodontal pocket penetration by conventional and microultrasonic inserts. J Clin Periodontol 1999; 26: 124-130.
12. Copulos TA, Low SB, Walker CB, Trebilcock YY, Hefti AF. Comparative analysis between a modified ultrasonic tip and hand instruments on clinical parameters of periodontal disease. J Periodontol 1993; 64: 694-700.
13. Yukna RA, Scott JB, Aichelmann-Reidy ME, LeBlanc DM, Mayer ET. Clinical evaluation of the speed and effectiveness of subgingival calculus removal on single-rooted teeth with diamond-coated ultrasonic tips. J Periodontol 1997; 68: 436-442.
14. Rosenberg RM, Ash MM, Jr. The effect of root roughness on plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. J Periodontol 1974; 45: 146-150.
15. Eberhard J, Ehlers H, Falk W, Acil Y, Albers HK, Jepsen S. Efficacy of subgingival calculus removal with Er:YAG laser compared to mechanical debridement: an in situ study. J Clin Periodontol 2003; 30: 511-518.
16. Huerzeler MB, Einsele FT, Leupolz M, Kerkhecker U, Strub JR. The effectiveness of different root debridement modalities in open flap surgery. J Clin Periodontol 1998; 25: 202- 208.
17. Cross-Poline GN, Stach DJ, Newman SM. Effects of curet and ultrasonics on root surfaces. Am J Dent 1995; 8: 131-133.
18. Jacobson L, Blomlof J, Lindskog S. Root surface texture after different scaling modalities. Scand J Dent Res 1994; 102: 156-160.
19. Busslinger A, Lampe K, Beuchat M, Lehmann B. A comparative in vitro study of a magnetostrictive and a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling instrument. J Clin Periodontol 2001; 28: 642-649.
20. Schmidlin PR, Beuchat M, Busslinger A, Lehmann B, Lutz F. Tooth substance loss resulting from mechanical, sonic and ultrasonic root instrumentation assessed by liquid scintillation. J Clin Periodontol 2001; 28: 1058-1066.
21. Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Hickel R, Klaiber B. Working parameters of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler influencing root substance removal in vitro. J Periodontol 1998; 69: 547-553.
22. Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Hickel R, Klaiber B. The effect of working parameters on root substance removal using a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler in vitro. J Clin Periodontol 1998; 25: 158-163.
23. Gagnot G, Mora F, Poblete MG, Vachey E, Michel JF, Cathelineau G. Comparative study of manual and ultrasonic instrumentation of cementum surfaces: influence of lateral pressure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004; 24: 137-145.
24. Lie T, Meyer K. Calculus removal and loss of tooth substance in response to different periodontal instruments. A scanning electron microscope study. J Clin Periodontol 1977; 4: 250-262.
25. Croft LK, Nunn ME, Crawford LC, et al. Patient preference for ultrasonic or hand instruments in periodontal maintenance. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003; 23: 567- 573.
26. Kawashima H, Sato S, Kishida M, Ito K. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using two piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers and a hand scaler in vivo. J Periodontal Res 2007; 42: 90-95.
27. Walmsley AD, Lea SC, Landini G, Moses AJ. Advances in power driven pocket/root instrumentation. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35: 22-28.
28. Yukna RA, Vastardis S, Mayer ET. Calculus removal with diamond-coated ultrasonic inserts in vitro. J Periodontol 2007; 78: 122- 126.
29. Folwaczny M, Merkel U, Mehl A, Hickel R. Influence of parameters on root surface roughness following treatment with a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 2004; 75: 1221-1226.
30. Ribeiro FV, Casarin RC, Nociti Junior FH, Sallum EA, Sallum AW, Casati MZ. Comparative in vitro study of root roughness after instrumentation with ultrasonic and diamond tip sonic scaler. J Appl Oral Sci: revista FOB 2006; 14: 124-129.
31. Trenter SC, Walmsley AD. Ultrasonic dental scaler: associated hazards. J Clin Periodontol 2003; 30: 95-101.
32. Jepsen S, Ayna M, Hedderich J, Eberhard J. Significant influence of scaler tip design on root substance loss resulting from ultrasonic scaling: a laserprofilometric in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 2004; 31: 1003-1006.
33. Lea SC, Felver B, Landini G, Walmsley AD. Ultrasonic scaler oscillations and tooth-surface defects. J Dent Res 2009; 88: 229-234.
34. Braun A, Krause F, Frentzen M, Jepsen S. Removal of root substance with the Vectorsystem compared with conventional debridement in vitro. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32: 153-157.