Evaluation of the effects of different scaling modalities on the root surfaces: an in vitro study
The variation in the effects of scaling devices on calculus removal, root surface roughness was unknown. This study evaluated the effectiveness of three piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers and a hand scaler in removing calculus. Twenty four extracted permanent teeth coated with artificial calculus were randomly assigned into four groups of scaler types: (1) EMS scaler (2) Gracey curette #5/6 (3) Satelec scaler (4) Kavo scaler for root planing. After instrumentation, the root surface were assessed for roughness and remaining calculus using a digital microscope Hirox KH-7700 version 2.0 (Hirox, Japan) under x50 magnification. The length of procedural time was also recorded. The remaining calculus was significantly lower for the EMS scaler group (0.32 mm2) than for the Kavo group (1.01 mm2), P= 0.037. The mean scores of surface roughness for the Gracey scaler group (15.90 mm2) was statistically significantly more than for the Satelec scaler group (5.38 mm2),P= 0.047. The mean time spent to remove calculus for the Gracey scaler group was significantly longer (16.76 min) than for the EMS (11.36 min; P=0.031) and Kavo scaler groups (11.41 min; P=0.033). The results indicate EMS scaler group is more favourable than the other piezoelectric scaler groups and Gracey scaler.
2. Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J. Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy. II. Severely advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol. 1984;11(1):63-76.
3. Khatiblou FA, Ghodssi A. Root surface smoothness or roughness in periodontal treatment. A clinical study. J Periodontol.
4. Bye FL, Ghilzan RS, Coffesse RG. Root surface roughness after the use of different modes of instrumentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1986;6(5):36-47.
5. Nyman S, Sarhed G, Ericsson I, Gottlow J, Karring T. Role of "diseased" root cementum in healing following treatment of periodontal disease. An experimental study in the dog. Journal of periodontal research. 1986;21(5):496-503.
6. Fukazawa E, Nishimura K. Superficial cemental curettage: its efficacy in promoting improved cellular attachment on human root surfaces previously damaged by periodontitis. J Periodontol. 1994;65(2):168-76.
7. 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. Journal of periodontal research. 2007;42(1):90-5.
8. Santos FA, Pochapski MT, Leal PC, Gimenes-Sakima PP, Marcantonio E, Jr. Comparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surface in vivo. Clin Oral Investig. 2008;12(2):143-50.
9. Dahiya P, Kamal R, Gupta R, Pandit N. Comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: A scanning electron microscopy study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2011;2(2):79-83.
10. 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(5):547-53.
11. 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(2):158-63.
12. 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(7):642-9.
13. Lea SC, Landini G, Walmsley AD. Displacement amplitude of ultrasonic scaler inserts. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30(6):505-10.
14. Dupont WD, Plummer WD. PS power and sample size program available for free on the internet. Controlled Clin Trials. 1997;18:274.
15. Kishida M, Sato S, Ito K. Comparison of the effects of various periodontal rotary instruments on surface characteristics of root surface. J Oral Sci. 2004;46(1):1-8.
16. Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M, Fekrazad R, Hajizadeh F, Ghafoori A. Comparison of the effect of hand instruments, an ultrasonic scaler, and an erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet laser on root surface roughness of teeth with periodontitis: a profilometer study. Journal of periodontal & implant science. 2013;43(2):101-5.
17. Kumar P, Das SJ, Sonowal ST, Chawla J. Comparison of Root Surface Roughness Produced By Hand Instruments and Ultrasonic Scalers: An Invitro Study. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR. 2015;9(11):Zc56-60.
18. Cobb CM. Lasers in periodontics: a review of the literature. J Periodontol. 2006;77(4):545-64.
19. Jacobson L, Blomlof J, Lindskog S. Root surface texture after different scaling modalities. Scand J Dent Res. 1994;102(3):156-60.
20. 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(4):310-23.
21. Drisko CL. Scaling and root planing without overinstrumentation: hand versus power-driven scalers. Curr Opin Periodontol. 1993:78-88.
22. Kishida M, Sato S, Ito K. Effects of a new ultrasonic scaler on fibroblast attachment to root surfaces: a scanning electron microscopy analysis. Journal of periodontal research. 2004;39(2):111-9.
23. Mittal A, Nichani AS, Venugopal R, Rajani V. The effect of various ultrasonic and hand instruments on the root surfaces of human single rooted teeth: A Planimetric and Profilometric study. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 2014;18(6):710-7.
24. 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(11):1003-6.
The submitting author on behalf of all the authors transfers the copyright ownership of the submitted work to the Journal of Oral Health Research in the event it is published. Authors declare that the article is original and is not under consideration for publication in any other journal. The authors confirm that the submitted paper or its contents (tables or figures) have not been previously published. The author(s) endorse that the final article has been read by all the authors and each author’s contribution has been approved by the appropriate author. In addition, all the authors declare that they have made substantive contributions to the submitted work and no authorship violation has been done.