Calculus Removal With Diamond‐Coated Ultrasonic Inserts In Vitro

Yukna, Raymond A.; Vastardis, Sotirios; Mayer, Elizabeth T.

doi:10.1902/jop.2007.060207

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…0%, Max.14.4%). This result was slightly better than findings by Yukna and co-workers, who noted 5.4% remaining calculus using the same instrument [24]. In the latter evaluation, however, an instrumentation time of 90 seconds was even necessary to clean a comparable surface in a similar laboratory setting.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

Potential of shock waves to remove calculus and biofilm

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective calculus and biofilm removal is essential to treat periodontitis. Sonic and ultrasonic technologies are used in several scaler applications. This was the first feasibility study to assess the potential of a shock wave device to remove calculus and biofilms and to kill bacteria. Ten extracted teeth with visible subgingival calculus were treated with either shock waves for 1 min at an energy output of 0.4 mJ/mm(2) at 3 Hz or a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler at medium power setting for 1 min, which served as a control. Calculus was determined before and after treatment planimetrically using a custom-made software using a grey scale threshold. In a second experiment, multispecies biofilms were formed on saliva-preconditioned bovine enamel discs during 64.5 h. They were subsequently treated with shock waves or the ultrasonic scaler (N = 6/group) using identical settings. Biofilm detachment and bactericidal effects were then assessed. Limited efficiency of the shock wave therapy in terms of calculus removal was observed: only 5% of the calculus was removed as compared to 100% when ultrasound was used (P

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 48%

Potential of shock waves to remove calculus and biofilm

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this is only a small improvement and the clinical relevance remains unknown. [ 15 19 ] The aim of such a treatment is to disrupt the subgingival biofilm and in doing so to reduce the pathogens that are present to allow periodontal health to return. [ 20 21 ] Therefore, it isn’t necessary to achieve a plaque reduction of 100%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ 22 ] Through the use of these Teflon coated tips it is possible to manage plaque removal effectively, whereas the removal of hard deposits like calculus seems insufficient. [ 28 ] Diamond-coated scaler tips seem to remove calculus faster,[ 19 ] but lead to more damage of the root surface. [ 29 30 ] Due to the fact that this aspect was not considered in this current study we will do further investigations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy versus health risks: An in vitro evaluation of power-driven scalers

Graetz

Plaumann

Bielfeldt

et al. 2015

J Indian Soc Periodontol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Power-driven instrumentation of root surfaces during supportive periodontal therapy is an alternative to hand instrumentation. The purpose of this pilot in vitro study was to investigate the efficacy of sub- and supragingival plaque removal with a sonic (AIR: Synea, W and H, Bürmoos, Austria) and two ultrasonic devices (TIG: Tigon+, W and H, Bürmoos, Austria; VEC: Vector, Dürr, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) as well as the health-risk for dental professionals during treatment.Materials and Methods:The power-driven devices were utilized to remove plaque from model teeth in dummy heads. The percentage of residual artificial plaque after 2 min of supra- or subgingival instrumentation was calculated by means of image-processing techniques at four sites (n = 576) of each tooth. The Health-Risk-Index (HRI: spatter/residual plaque quotient) with the different power-driven devices was assessed during treatment.Results:The smallest amounts of residual plaque were found for the sonic device AIR (8.89% ± 10.92%) and the ultrasonic scaler TIG (8.72% ± 12.02%) (P = 0.707). Significantly more plaque was remained after the use of the ultrasonic scaler VEC (18.76% ± 18.07%) (P < 0.001). Irrespectively of the scaler, efficacy was similar sub- (10.7% ± 11.6%) and supragingivally (13.5% ± 17.2%) (P = 0.901). AIR/TIG demonstrated equal residual amounts of plaque sub- (P = 0.831) as well as supragingivally (P = 0.510). However, AIR/VEC and TIG/VEC were significantly in favor of AIR and TIG (P < 0.001). In contrast, the lowest HRI was found after using VEC (0.0043) and differed considerably for AIR (0.2812) and TIG (0.0287).Conclusion:Sonic devices are as effective as ultrasonic devices in the removal of biofilm but bear a higher risk to the dental professional's health concerning the formation of spatter.

show abstract

“…According to the authors, the analysis of SEM micrographs showed thatt hese valleys formed by the ultrasonic instrumentation gave the surface a rougher aspect, with several grooves and gouges on root surface. Another explanation for the abrasive capacity of the ultrasonic scaler is the occurrence of burns and hamp on root surface (16), and the fast oscillatory movements of the tip that wear out more root substance leading to the formation of longer and deeper defects and a rougher surface (16). The Gracey curettes and other manual instruments remove several layers of root substance and are intimately dependent on the applied force, angle and sharpness of the curette tip (5).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Calculus Removal With Diamond‐Coated Ultrasonic Inserts In Vitro

Abstract: In vitro calculus removal was faster with DIs, followed by HIs and PIs. More residual calculus was found with the DIs; however, the 1% to 3% difference (93.7% clean versus 94.6% clean versus 96.9% clean with DIs, PIs, and HIs, respectively) does not seem to be clinically significant.

Cited by 9 publications

References 33 publications

Potential of shock waves to remove calculus and biofilm

Potential of shock waves to remove calculus and biofilm

Efficacy versus health risks: An in vitro evaluation of power-driven scalers

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About