Effects of High Speed Periodontal Instruments on Tooth Surface

Allen, E. F.; Rhoads, Robert H.

doi:10.1902/jop.1963.34.4.352

Cited by 40 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies conducted with a profilometer have shown that smoother surfaces are obtained with curettes than with an air scaler or ultrasonic instruments (Bye et al 1986, Van Volkinburg et al 1976, Jones et al 1972, Kerry 1967, Meyer & Lie 1977, Schlageter et al 1996). Using SEM, the same conclusion was reached by Allen & Rhoads (1963), Belting & Spjut (1964), Björn & Lindhe (1962), Cross‐Poline et al (1995), Gantes et al (1992), Garnick & Dent (1989), Hunter et al (1984), Pameijer et al (1972), and Wilkinson & Maybury (1973). However, D’Silva et al (1979), Ewen & Gwinnett (1977) and Moskov et al (1964) found just the opposite.…”

supporting

confidence: 62%

Subgingival polishing with a teflon‐coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth

Kocher

Rosin

Langenbeck

et al. 2001

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 62%

Subgingival polishing with a teflon‐coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth

Kocher

Rosin

Langenbeck

et al. 2001

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Possible differences in subgingival root surface roughness and cementum removal after the use of the two methods do not seem to have any clinically significant effect on the healing of the gingiva. Although there is not complete agreement, several previous studies have indicated that tiltrasonics result in a rougher surface than hand instruments (Allen & Rhoads 1963, Belting & Spjut 1964, Kerry 1967, Wilkinson & Maybury 1973, Rosenberg & Ash 1974, Van Volkinburg et al 1976. While this may be a critical factor in areas exposed to supragingival plaque accumulation (Turesky et al 1961, Berthold et al 1971, Lie 1977, root surface smoothness may he of less importance in subgingival areas (Rosenberg & Ash 1974).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Clinical improvement of gingival conditions following ultrasonic versus hand instrumentation of periodontal pockets

Torfason

Kiger

Selvig

et al. 1979

J Clinic Periodontology

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study utilizing a split-mouth design in 18 subjects and with four operators was performed in order to compare the effect of hand and ultrasonic instrumentation of periodontal pockets. Contralateral pairs of teeth with pockets of comparable depth were treated by either hand or ultrasonic instruments. Instrumentation was repeated after 4 weeks. Pocket depth, bleeding on probing and gingival fluid measurements were used for evaluation. A gradual reduction of pocket depth and number of bleeding points took place throughout the 8-week experimental period. Clinically significant differences were not observed comparing the effect of hand instruments to ultrasonics for any of the operators. The amounts of gingival fluid were similar for both methods of instrumentation at the final examination. Thus, the present study failed to demonstrate any significant differences between the effect of ultrasonic root debridement and hand instrumentation in the treatment of 4-6 mm deep periodontal pockets.

show abstract

“…Often, root surface instrumentation with hand instruments (HIs) is difficult, time consuming, and requires a substantial amount of physical effort. In addition to HIs, various powered instruments are available to the clinician for mechanical root preparation, including sonic and ultrasonic scalers and rotating instruments 2,5‐13 . Sonic and ultrasonic instruments are valuable because they do not require as much physical effort by the operator 14 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%