Limits...
A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments--an in vitro profilometric and SEM study.

Singh S, Uppoor A, Nayak D - J Appl Oral Sci (2012)

Bottom Line: However, their effectiveness as compared to manual curettes has always been debatable.Though there was a decrease in the percentage reduction of Ra values consecutively from group A to C.Within the limits of the present study, given that the manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments produce the same surface roughness, it can be concluded that their efficacy for creating a biologically compatible surface of periodontally diseased teeth is similar.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Periodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The debridement of diseased root surface is usually performed by mechanical scaling and root planing using manual and power driven instruments. Many new designs in ultrasonic powered scaling tips have been developed. However, their effectiveness as compared to manual curettes has always been debatable. Thus, the objective of this in vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instrumentation on periodontally involved extracted teeth using profilometer and scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Material and methods: 30 periodontally involved extracted human teeth were divided into 3 groups. The teeth were instrumented with hand and ultrasonic instruments resembling clinical application. In Group A all teeth were scaled with a new universal hand curette (Hu Friedy Gracey After Five Vision curette; Hu Friedy, Chicago, USA). In Group B CavitronTM FSI - SLI TM ultrasonic device with focused spray slimline inserts (Dentsply International Inc., York, PA, USA) were used. In Group C teeth were scaled with an EMS piezoelectric ultrasonic device with prototype modified PS inserts. The surfaces were analyzed by a Precision profilometer to measure the surface roughness (Ra value in µm) consecutively before and after the instrumentation. The samples were examined under SEM at magnifications ranging from 17x to 300x and 600x.

Results: The mean Ra values (µm) before and after instrumentation in all the three groups A, B and C were tabulated. After statistically analyzing the data, no significant difference was observed in the three experimental groups. Though there was a decrease in the percentage reduction of Ra values consecutively from group A to C.

Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, given that the manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments produce the same surface roughness, it can be concluded that their efficacy for creating a biologically compatible surface of periodontally diseased teeth is similar.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) view of group B sample. A: SEM view of groupB sample at 300x magnification. B: SEM view of group B sample at 600xmagnification
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3928767&req=5

f04: Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) view of group B sample. A: SEM view of groupB sample at 300x magnification. B: SEM view of group B sample at 600xmagnification

Mentions: The SEM observation revealed that all the instruments managed to remove the calculusdeposits quite effectively. Large remaining deposits were rarely seen. Remnants ofcalculus were seen at magnification 300x (Figures3a, 4a, 5a) and at 600x (Figures 3b, 4b, 5b). Presence of smear layer was noted in all the three groups at highmagnifications.


A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments--an in vitro profilometric and SEM study.

Singh S, Uppoor A, Nayak D - J Appl Oral Sci (2012)

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) view of group B sample. A: SEM view of groupB sample at 300x magnification. B: SEM view of group B sample at 600xmagnification
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3928767&req=5

f04: Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) view of group B sample. A: SEM view of groupB sample at 300x magnification. B: SEM view of group B sample at 600xmagnification
Mentions: The SEM observation revealed that all the instruments managed to remove the calculusdeposits quite effectively. Large remaining deposits were rarely seen. Remnants ofcalculus were seen at magnification 300x (Figures3a, 4a, 5a) and at 600x (Figures 3b, 4b, 5b). Presence of smear layer was noted in all the three groups at highmagnifications.

Bottom Line: However, their effectiveness as compared to manual curettes has always been debatable.Though there was a decrease in the percentage reduction of Ra values consecutively from group A to C.Within the limits of the present study, given that the manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments produce the same surface roughness, it can be concluded that their efficacy for creating a biologically compatible surface of periodontally diseased teeth is similar.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Periodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal University, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The debridement of diseased root surface is usually performed by mechanical scaling and root planing using manual and power driven instruments. Many new designs in ultrasonic powered scaling tips have been developed. However, their effectiveness as compared to manual curettes has always been debatable. Thus, the objective of this in vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instrumentation on periodontally involved extracted teeth using profilometer and scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Material and methods: 30 periodontally involved extracted human teeth were divided into 3 groups. The teeth were instrumented with hand and ultrasonic instruments resembling clinical application. In Group A all teeth were scaled with a new universal hand curette (Hu Friedy Gracey After Five Vision curette; Hu Friedy, Chicago, USA). In Group B CavitronTM FSI - SLI TM ultrasonic device with focused spray slimline inserts (Dentsply International Inc., York, PA, USA) were used. In Group C teeth were scaled with an EMS piezoelectric ultrasonic device with prototype modified PS inserts. The surfaces were analyzed by a Precision profilometer to measure the surface roughness (Ra value in µm) consecutively before and after the instrumentation. The samples were examined under SEM at magnifications ranging from 17x to 300x and 600x.

Results: The mean Ra values (µm) before and after instrumentation in all the three groups A, B and C were tabulated. After statistically analyzing the data, no significant difference was observed in the three experimental groups. Though there was a decrease in the percentage reduction of Ra values consecutively from group A to C.

Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, given that the manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments produce the same surface roughness, it can be concluded that their efficacy for creating a biologically compatible surface of periodontally diseased teeth is similar.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus