World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 1 , ISSUE 3 ( October-December, 2010 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Various Root Planing Instruments: Hand and Ultrasonic—Standard Smooth and Diamond Coated: An in vivo Study

Sushama R Galgali, NP Rajiv

Citation Information : Galgali SR, Rajiv N. Comparison of Various Root Planing Instruments: Hand and Ultrasonic—Standard Smooth and Diamond Coated: An in vivo Study. World J Dent 2010; 1 (3):149-157.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1031

Published Online: 00-12-2010

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2010; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective

This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various root planing instruments, namely the curette, standard smooth ultrasonic tip and diamond coated ultrasonic tip under conditions of nonsurgical root debridement.

Materials and methods

A total of 20 incisors from 14 patients, with a pocket depth of 5 to 10 mm, indicated for extraction were selected for the study. Teeth selected were randomly assigned to one of the two groups, experimental group A and experimental group B. The proximal surfaces of teeth in experimental group A was instrumented with either Gracey curette or standard smooth ultrasonic tip and in experimental group B with either Gracey curette or diamond coated ultrasonic tip, randomly. Teeth were extracted without injuring the experimental area. The surface area under treatment was photographed at 10X and the percentage of residual calculus was evaluated. Teeth were processed for viewing under scanning electron microscope. Photomicrographs were graded for degree of cleanliness, Remaining Calculus Index (RCI) and Roughness and Loss of Tooth Substance Index (RLTSI) by an independent examiner.

Results

Percentage of residual calculus as evaluated using stereomicroscope did not show any statistical significance within the groups and among all the three instruments. Scanning electron microscopic assessment for the degree of cleanliness showed better cleanliness for curette compared to standard smooth ultrasonic tip. Remaining calculus was significantly higher for standard smooth ultrasonic tip compared to curette. Diamond coated ultrasonic tip showed greater roughness and loss of tooth substance.

Conclusion

Within the limits of this in vivo study, diamond coated ultrasonic tip removed a greater amount of root surface and created a rougher surface compared to the curette and standard smooth ultrasonic tip. The amount of root surface removed with diamond coated ultrasonic inserts suggests that they should be used with caution.


PDF Share
  1. Ultrasonic instruments and antimicrobial agents in supportive periodontal treatment and retreatment of recurrent or refractory periodontitis. Periodontol 2000 1996;12:90-115.
  2. Current concepts and advances in manual and power-driven instrumentation. Periodontol 2000-2004;36:45-58.
  3. Comparison of the effectiveness of scaling and root planing in vivo using hand vs rotary instruments. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 2004;24:370-77.
  4. Calculus removal and loss of tooth substance in response to different periodontal instruments. A scanning electron microscope study. J Clin Periodontol 1977;4:250-62.
  5. Evaluation of the effect on root surfaces of air turbine scalers and ultrasonic instrumentation. J Periodontol 1985;522-31.
  6. Mechanical and chemical root preparation in vitro: efficacy of plaque and calculus removal. J Periodontol 1991;755-60.
  7. Non-surgical periodontal treatment: Where are the limits? An SEM study. J Clin Periodontol 1992;19: 240-44.
  8. A clinical evaluation of hand and ultrasonic instruments on subgingival debridement (Part I). With unmodified and modified ultrasonic inserts. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 1992;12:311-23.
  9. In vitro effectiveness of a newly-designed ultrasonic scaler tip for furcation areas. J Periodontol 1989;60:634-39.
  10. A comparative in vitro study of a magnetostrictive and a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling instrument. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28:642-49.
  11. The effectiveness of the Titan-S sonic scaler versus curettes in the removal of subgingival calculus: A human surgical evaluation. J Periodontol 1986;672-80.
  12. Subgingival polishing with a Teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth. Residual deposits (Part I). J Clin Periodontol 2000;27:243-49.
  13. Root surface removal with diamond-coated ultrasonic instruments: An in vitro and SEM study. J Periodontol 1996;67:1281-87.
  14. Root surface roughness in response to periodontal instrumentation studied by combined use of microroughness measurements and scanning electron microscopy. J Clin Periodontol 1977;4:77-91.
  15. An in vitro study of oscillating instruments for root planing. J Clin Periodontol 1994;21:513-18.
  16. Root surface debridement and endotoxin removal. J Periodont Res 2003;38:229-36.
  17. Clinical effectiveness of the speed and effectiveness of subgingival calculus removal on single-rooted teeth with diamond-coated ultrasonic tips. J Periodontol 1997;68:436-42.
  18. Improved efficacy of calculus removal in furcations using ultrasonic diamondcoated inserts. Int J Periodontics Rest Dent 1999;19:355-61.
  19. The diamond-coated sonic scaler tip. Part II: Loss of substance and alteration of root surface texture after different scaling modalities. Int J Periodont Restorative Dent 1997;17:485-93.
  20. Displacement amplitude of ultrasonic scaler inserts. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30:505-10.
  21. Significant influence of scaler tip design on root substance loss resulting from ultrasonic scaling: A laser profilometric in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:1003-06.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.