Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Subgingival instrumentation to remove simulated plaque in vitro: influence of operators’ experience and type of instrument

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There is uncertainty regarding the benefits and risks of hand versus powered root surface instrumentation. Moreover, the influence of operators’ experience on treatment results is unclear. We compared newly developed sonic, ultrasonic and hand instruments, hypothesizing that powered devices allow to remove more simulated plaque in less time than hand instruments, with significant influence of operators’ experience.

Methods

Sonic scaler (AIR), ultrasonic scaler (TIG) device and double Gracey curettes (GRA) were utilized by seven experienced operators (EOs) and four less experienced operators (LOs) in periodontitis manikin heads. The time required for treatment, the proportion of residual-simulated plaque and the weight loss caused by scaling as a proxy for root surface destruction were measured.

Results

Using different instruments led to significantly different proportions of removed simulated plaque regardless of operators’ experience (AIR, 80.2 ± 21.3 %, TIG, 69.9 ± 22.5 %, GRA, 73.1 ± 20.0 %) (p < 0.001). Treatment times did not significantly differ between EO and LO (p > 0.05). Weight loss was increased when using hand instead of powered instruments (p < 0.001), with significantly higher weight loss induced by LO than EO (p = 0.004).

Conclusion

Within the present study, EO did not remove more simulated plaque in less time but induced less root surface destruction. Using a sonic device was most beneficial for plaque removal.

Clinical relevance

Successful root surface debridement requires both time and training regardless of the used instrument. Hand instruments might cause more damage to root surfaces, especially in the hands of less experienced operators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Petersilka GJ, Ehmke B, Flemmig TF (2002) Antimicrobial effects of mechanical debridement. Periodontology 2000 28:56–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Westfelt E (1996) Rationale of mechanical plaque control. J Clin Periodontol 23(3 Pt 2):263–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lowenberg B, Thibault J, Lawrence C, Sodek J (1986) The influence of chemically-induced modifications of root surfaces on cell migration, attachment, and orientation. J Dent Res 65(7):1010–1015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Frantz B, Polson A (1988) Tissue interactions with dentin specimens after demineralization using tetracycline. J Periodontol 59(11):714–721. doi:10.1902/jop.1988.59.11.714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Babay N (2000) Comparative SEM study on the effect of root conditioning with EDTA or tetracycline Hcl on periodontally involved root surfaces. Indian J Dent Res 11(2):53–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Khosravi M, Bahrami ZS, Atabaki MS, Shokrgozar MA, Shokri F (2004) Comparative effectiveness of hand and ultrasonic instrumentations in root surface planing in vitro. J Clin Periodontol 31(3):160–165. doi:10.1111/j.0303-6979.2004.00458.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kocher T, König J, Hansen P, Rühling A (2001) Subgingival polishing compared to scaling with steel curettes: a clinical pilot study. J Clin Periodontol 28(2):194–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones WA, O’Leary TJ (1978) The effectiveness of in vivo root planing in removing bacterial endotoxin from the roots of periodontally involved teeth. J Periodontol 49(7):337–342. doi:10.1902/jop.1978.49.7.337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Drisko CL, Cochran DL, Blieden T, Bouwsma OJ, Cohen RE, Damoulis P, Fine JB, Greenstein G, Hinrichs J, Somerman MJ, Iacono V, Genco RJ (2000) Position paper: sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontics. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol 71(11):1792–1801. doi:10.1902/jop.2000.71.11.1792

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kahl M, Haase E, Kocher T, Ruhling A (2007) Clinical effects after subgingival polishing with a non-aggressive ultrasonic device in initial therapy. J Clin Periodontol 34(4):318–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Derdilopoulou FV, Nonhoff J, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM (2007) Microbiological findings after periodontal therapy using curettes, Er:YAG laser, sonic, and ultrasonic scalers. J Clin Periodontol 34(7):588–598. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01093.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Braun A, Jepsen S, Deimling D, Ratka-Kruger P (2010) Subjective intensity of pain during supportive periodontal treatment using a sonic scaler or an Er:YAG laser. J Clin Periodontol 37(4):340–345. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01536.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Meyer K, Lie T (1977) Root surface roughness in response to periodontal instrumentation studied by combined use of microroughness measurements and scanning electron microscopy. J Clin Periodontol 4(2):77–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tunkel J, Heinecke A, Flemmig TF (2002) A systematic review of efficacy of machine-driven and manual subgingival debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 29(Suppl 3):72–81, discussion 90–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kocher T, Ruhling A, Momsen H, Plagmann HC (1997) Effectiveness of subgingival instrumentation with power-driven instruments in the hands of experienced and inexperienced operators. A study on manikins. J Clin Periodontol 24(7):498–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Walmsley AD, Lea SC, Landini G, Moses AJ (2008) Advances in power driven pocket/root instrumentation. J Clin Periodontol 35(8 Suppl):22–28. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01258.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rühling A, Schlemme H, Konig J, Kocher T, Schwahn C, Plagmann HC (2002) Learning root debridement with curettes and power-driven instruments. Part I: a training program to increase effectivity. J Clin Periodontol 29(7):622–629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zappa U, Smith B, Simona C, Graf H, Case D, Kim W (1991) Root substance removal by scaling and root planing. J Periodontol 62(12):750–754. doi:10.1902/jop.1991.62.12.750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Rudiger S, Hickel R, Klaiber B (1997) Working parameters of a sonic scaler influencing root substance removal in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 1(2):55–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Hickel R, Klaiber B (1998) The effect of working parameters on root substance removal using a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler in vitro. J Clin Periodontol 25(2):158–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gankerseer EJ, Walmsley AD (1987) Preliminary investigation into the performance of a sonic scaler. J Periodontol 58(11):780–784. doi:10.1902/jop.1987.58.11.780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Adriaens PA, Adriaens LM (2004) Effects of nonsurgical periodontal therapy on hard and soft tissues. Periodontology 2000 36:121–145. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0757.2004.03676.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Laurell L, Pettersson B (1988) Periodontal healing after treatment with either the Titan-S sonic scaler or hand instruments. Swed Dent J 12(5):187–192

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J (1984) Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy. II. Severely advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 11(1):63–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zappa UE (1992) Factors determining the outcome of scaling and root planing. Probes 26(4):152–159

    Google Scholar 

  26. Dörfer CE, Stückgen D, Staehle HJ, Cheung F (2000) Number and morphology of root-concavities. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 55:257–263 [Article in German]

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schmidlin PR, Beuchat M, Busslinger A, Lehmann B, Lutz F (2001) Tooth substance loss resulting from mechanical, sonic and ultrasonic root instrumentation assessed by liquid scintillation. J Clin Periodontol 28(11):1058–1066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ewen SJ, Gwinnett AJ (1977) A scanning electron microscopic study of teeth following periodontal instrumentation. J Periodontol 48(2):92–97. doi:10.1902/jop.1977.48.2.92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jones SJ, Lozdan J, Boyde A (1972) Tooth surfaces treated in situ with periodontal instruments. Scanning electron microscopic studies. Br Dent J 132(2):57–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pameijer CH, Stallard RE, Hiep N (1972) Surface characteristics of teeth following periodontal instrumentation: a scanning electron microscope study. J Periodontol 43(10):628–633. doi:10.1902/jop.1972.43.10.628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Haffajee AD, Teles RP, Socransky SS (2006) The effect of periodontal therapy on the composition of the subgingival microbiota. Periodontology 2000 42:219–258. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0757.2006.00191.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Corbet EF, Vaughan AJ, Kieser JB (1993) The periodontally-involved root surface. J Clin Periodontol 20(6):402–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Clark SM, Grupe HE, Mahler DB (1968) The effect of ultrasonic instrumentation on root surfaces. J Periodontol 39(3):135–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Garrett JS (1983) Effects of nonsurgical periodontal therapy on periodontitis in humans. A review. J Clin Periodontol 10(5):515–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. König J, Ruhling A, Schlemme H, Kocher T, Schwahn C, Plagmann HC (2002) Learning root debridement with curettes and power-driven instruments in vitro: the role of operator motivation and self-assessment. Eur J Dent Educ 6(4):169–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rühling A, König J, Rolf H, Kocher T, Schwahn C, Plagmann HC (2003) Learning root debridement with curettes and power-driven instruments. Part II: clinical results following mechanical, nonsurgical therapy. J Clin Periodontol 30(7):611–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Del Peloso RE, Bittencourt S, Nociti FH Jr, Sallum EA, Sallum AW, Casati MZ (2007) Comparative study of ultrasonic instrumentation for the non-surgical treatment of interproximal and non-interproximal furcation involvements. J Periodontol 78(2):224–230. doi:10.1902/jop.2007.060312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Leonhardt A, Bergstrom C, Krok L, Cardaropoli G (2007) Microbiological effect of the use of an ultrasonic device and iodine irrigation in patients with severe chronic periodontal disease: a randomized controlled clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand 65(1):52–59. doi:10.1080/00016350600973078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Auplish G, Needleman IG, Moles DR, Newman HN (2000) Diamond-coated sonic tips are more efficient for open debridement of molar furcations. A comparative manikin study. J Clin Periodontol 27(5):302–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was technically (instruments provided) supported by the Loser Company (Loser & Co, Leverkusen, Germany) and W&H Company (W&H, Bürmoos, Austria).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest. This study was technically (instruments provided) supported by the Loser Company (Loser & Co, Leverkusen, Germany) and W&H Company (W&H, Bürmoos, Austria).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Christian Graetz, Anna Plaumann, Sebastian Rauschenbach, Claudia Springer, Maren Kahl, Sonja Sälzer & Christof E. Dörfer

  2. Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité-University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Falk Schwendicke

Authors
  1. Christian Graetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Falk Schwendicke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Plaumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sebastian Rauschenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Claudia Springer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maren Kahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sonja Sälzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Christof E. Dörfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Graetz.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 2120 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 14 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Graetz, C., Schwendicke, F., Plaumann, A. et al. Subgingival instrumentation to remove simulated plaque in vitro: influence of operators’ experience and type of instrument. Clin Oral Invest 19, 987–995 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1319-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1319-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation