Root surface defect produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scaler with different power settings: an in vitro study

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the root surface defect produced by hand curettes and ultrasonic tips with different power settings. Forty root surfaces were divided into 4 groups according the treatment: Gracey curettes, ultrasonic scaler at 10% power, ultrasonic scaler at 50% power and ultrasonic scaler at 100% power. Each specimen was instrumented with 15 strokes and the and divided in the middle to evaluate: (1) the defect depth produced by the instrumentation and (2) contact area of the instrument tips, which was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. ANOVA and Tukey's test were used for statistical analysis (a=0.05). The results (mean ± SD) of the contact area showed significantly greater defects (p<0.05) for the hand instrumented groups (2092.9 ± 482) compared to the ultrasonic groups (606.8 ± 283.0; 858.6 ± 422.5; 1212.0 ± 366.7, respectively), independently of the power setting. The values for the defect depth on root surface showed no statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between hand instrumentation (66.1 ± 34.0) and ultrasonic scaling at 10%, 50% or 100% power settings (52.4 ± 22.1; 72.0 ± 29.9; 77.7 ± 37.7, respectively). The findings of this study demonstrate that ultrasonic instrumentation produced a similar defect depth to that of hand instrumentation, with a smaller tip contact area, independently of the power setting used for scaling.

The effect of the angle of instrumentation of the Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Scaler on root surfaces

“…In our study, after analysing the MRS of the samples after the treatments, it was observed that the root surfaces treated with MC exhibited a smooth surface with occluded dentinal tubules and the presence of a smear layer, and this morphology pattern resembles those found in other studies (12)(13)(14). This morphological aspect is due to the extensive contact area between the cutting face of the MC and the sample, which facilitates the achievement of a root surface that is more uniform and regular (15).…”

“…Analysis of the roughness demonstrated that the samples treated with the manual curettes showed a lesser degree of roughness than the samples treated with the PUS, and this was in agreement with the morphological pattern found by SEM analysis. This fact can also be explained by the greater surface contact of the cutting face of the MC, which promotes a more uniform approach on the root surface than the tip of the ultrasonic scaler . The PUS caused an increase of the root surface roughness as the working angle increased from 0° to 60°.…”

Evaluation of the Effects of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, Ultrasonic Scaler and Curette on Root Surface Profile Using Surface Analyser and Scanning Electron Microscope: An In Vitro Study

“…26 Laser treated surfaces presented with maximum craters (50%), while curettes produced the smoothest surfaces. Renato et al 27 suggested that greater contact area during instrumentation by curette produces a smoother surface.…”

Effects of Root Debridement With Hand Curettes and Er:YAG Laser on Chemical Properties and Ultrastructure of Periodontally-Diseased Root Surfaces Using Spectroscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy

“…Such differences in methodologies can explain the controversy in results. 32,33 Within the limitations of this study, the results showed that chemical changes of periodontally-diseased root surfaces following root debridement with hand curettes with and without Er:YAG laser irradiation (100 and 150 mJ) were not significantly different; although laser irradiation yielded rougher surfaces. Interestingly, Er:YAG irradiation showed higher percentages of carbon and oxygen compare to hand instrumentation that may have some clinical implications in new attachment of viable fibroblasts.…”