Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surface in vivo

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

Abstract

The present study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of different ultrasonic instruments on the root surface. Fourteen patients with 35 single root teeth designated for extraction were recruited to the present study. Teeth were assigned to four experimental groups: group 1, piezoelectric ultrasonic device; group 2, magnetostrictive ultrasonic device; group 3, hand instrumentation; and group 4, untreated teeth (control). After instrumentation, the teeth were extracted and the presence of residual deposits (roughness and root surfaces characteristics) were analyzed. The results showed that residual deposits were similar in all tested groups: piezoelectric, 8.7%; magnetostrictive, 9.7%; hand instrumentation, 11.1% and control, 76.4%. There were statistically significant differences between control and all the experimental groups (p < 0.0001). With respect to roughness parameters evaluation, Ra and Rz of the roots treated with the different instruments showed a similar pattern (p > 0.05), but for Rt and Ry, a significant difference was observed (p < 0.05) among hand instrumentation and ultrasonic devices. SEM analysis revealed a similar root surface pattern for the ultrasonic devices, but curettes showed many instrumental scratches, deep gouges, and a relatively large amount of dentin was removed. Within the limits of the study, although the instruments produced similar results, root surfaces instrumentated with curettes were rougher and had more root surface tissue removed than with the ultrasonic device.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Omari WM, Mitchell CA, Cunningham JL (2001) Surface roughness and wettability of enamel and dentine surfaces prepared with different dental burs. J Oral Rehabil 28:645–650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J (1981) Effect of non-surgical periodontal therapy. (I). Moderately advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 8:57–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Braum A, Krause F, Frentzen M, Jepsen S (2005) Efficiency of subgingival calculus removal with the Vector™- system compared to ultrasonic scaling and hand instrumentation in vitro. J Periodontol Res 40:48–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brayer WK, Mellonig JT, Dunlap RM, Marinak KW, Carson RE (1989) Scaling and root planing effectiveness: the effect of root surface access and operator experience. J Periodontol 60:67–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buchanan SA, Robertson PB (1987) Calculus removal by scaling/root planning with and without surgical access. J Periodontol 58:159–163

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Busslinger A, Lampe K, Beuchat M, Lehmann B (2001) A comparative in vitro study of a magnetostrictive and a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling instrument. J Clin Periodontol 28:642–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Caffesse RG, Sweeney PL, Smith BA (1986) Scaling and root planning with and without periodontal flap surgery. J Clin Periodontol 13:205–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chan YK, Needleman IG, Clifford L (2000) Comparison of four methods do assessing root surface debridement. J Periodontol 71:385–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Copulos TA, Low SB, Walker CB, Trebilcock YY, Hefti AF (1993) Comparative analysis between a modified ultrasonic tip and hand instruments on clinical parameters of periodontal diseases. J Periodontol 64:694–700

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cross-Poline GN, Stach DJ, Newman SM (1995) Effects of curet and ultrasonics on root surfaces. Am J Dent 8:131–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dragoo MR (1992) A clinical evaluation of hand and ultrasonic instruments on subgingival debridement. Part I. With unmodified and modified ultrasonic inserts. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 12:311–323

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eberhard J, Ehlers H, Falk W, Açil Y, Albers H-K, Jepsen S (2003) Efficacy of subgingival calculus removal with Er:YAG laser compared to mechanical debridement: an in situ study. J Clin Periodontol 30:511–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fleischer HC, Mellonig JT, Brayer WK, Gray JL, Barnett JD (1989) Scaling and root planing efficacy in multirooted teeth. J Periodontol 60:402–409

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Folwaczny M, Merkel U, Mehl A, Hickel R (2004) Influence of parameters on root surface roughness following treatment with a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 75:1221–1226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Huerzeler MB, Einsele FT, Leupolz M, Kerkhecker U, Strub JR (1998) The effectiveness of different root debridement modalities in open flap surgery. J Clin Periodontol 25:202–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jepsen S, Ayna M, Hedderich J, Eberhard J (2004) Significant influence of scaler tip design on root substance loss resulting form ultrasonic scaling a laserprofilometric in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 31:1003–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kishida M, Sato S, Ito K (2004) Comparison of the effects of various periodontal rotary instruments on surface characteristics of root surface. J Oral Sci 46:1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kocher T, Langenbeck N, Rühling A, Plagmann H-C (2000) Subgengival polishing with a Teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth: (I). Residual deposits. J Clin Periodontol 27:243–249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kocher T, Rosin M, Langenbeck N, Bernhardt O (2001) Subgengival polishing with a Teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth: (II). Subgengival roughness. J Clin Periodontol 28:723–729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lea SC, Landini G, Walmsley AD (2002) Vibration characteristics of ultrasonic scalers assessed with scanning laser vibrometry. J Dent 30:147–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lea SC, Landini G, Walmsley AD (2003) Displacement amplitude of ultrasonic scaler inserts. J Clin Periodontol 30:505–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee A, Heasman PA, Kelly PJ (1996) An in vitro comparative study of a reciprocating scaler for root surface debridement. J Dent 24:81–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Leknes KN, Lie T, Wikesjö UME, Bogle GC, Selvig KA (1994) Influence of tooth instrumentation roughness on subgingival microbial colonization. J Periodontol 65:303–308

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Loos B, Kiger R, Egelberg J (1987) An evaluation of basic periodontal therapy using sonic and ultrasonic scalers. J Clin Periodontol 14:29–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher HJ, Weerkamp AH, Darius PL, Van Steenberghe D (1990) The influence of surface free energy and surface roughness on early plaque formation. An in vivo study in man. J Clin Periodontol 17:138–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schenk G, Flemmig TF, Lob S, Ruckdeschel G, Hinckel R (2000) Lack of antimicrobial effect on periodontopathic bacteria by ultrasonic and sonic scalers in vitro. J Clin Periodontol 27:116–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schlageter L, Rateitschak-Plüs EM, Schwarz J-P (1996) Root smoothness or roughness following open debridement. An in vivo study. J Clin Periodontol 23:460–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schwarz J-P, Guggenheim R, Düggelin M, Hefti AF, Rateitschak-Plüss EM, Rateitschak KH (1989) The effectiveness of root debridement in open flap procedures by means of comparison between hand instruments and diamond burs. A SEM study. J Clin Periodontol 16:510–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sherman PR, Hutchens LH Jr, Jewson LG, Moriarty JM, Greco GW, McFall WT Jr (1990) The effectiveness of subgingival scaling and root planning I. Clinical detection of residual calculus. J Periodontol 61:3–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Trenter SC, Landini G, Walmsley AD (2003) Effect of loading no vibration characterist of thin magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler inserts. J Periodontol 74:1308–1315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Walmsley AD, Walsh TF, Laird WRE Williams AR (1990) Effects of cavitational activity on the root surface of teeth during ultrasonic scaler. J Clin Periodontol 17:306–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yukna RA, Scott JB, Aichelmann-Reidy ME, LeBlanc DM, Mayer ET (1997) Clinical evaluation of the speed and effectiveness of subgingival calculus removal on single-rooted teeth with diamond-coated ultrasonic tips. J Periodontol 68:436–442

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil

    Fábio André Santos & Márcia Thaís Pochapski

  2. Ave. Carlos Cavalcanti, n.4748, CEP-84030-900, Uvaranas, Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil

    Fábio André Santos

  3. Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, UNESP—São Paulo State University, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil

    Paola Cristina Leal, Patrícia Panizzi Gimenes-Sakima & Elcio Marcantonio Jr.

Authors
  1. Fábio André Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Márcia Thaís Pochapski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paola Cristina Leal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrícia Panizzi Gimenes-Sakima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elcio Marcantonio Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fábio André Santos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Santos, F.A., Pochapski, M.T., Leal, P.C. et al. Comparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surface in vivo. Clin Oral Invest 12, 143–150 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0167-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0167-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation