Periodontal healing after non‐surgical therapy with a new ultrasonic device: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract

Both the Vector system and S/RP provided favourable periodontal healing results, although in deep pockets S/RP appeared to achieve a better resolution of inflammation.

In vitro evaluation of surface roughness, adhesion of periodontal ligament fibroblasts, and Streptococcus gordonii following root instrumentation with Gracey curettes and subsequent polishing with diamond-coated curettes

“…Comparisons between hand instruments and sonic and ultrasonic scalers did not show a clear advantage for the machine driven instruments [3], and traumatisation immediately after instrumentation was similar [4]. Moreover, the use of hand instruments (i.e., conventional Gracey curettes) yielded even greater improvements in some parameters (e.g., bleeding on probing) compared to instrumentation with an ultrasonic system [5]. Other studies have shown that the use of conventional Gracey curettes may result in higher substance loss but significantly better calculus removal [6][7][8] and smoother surfaces compared to sonic and ultrasonic instrumentation [6,9,10].…”

Effects of vector ultrasonic system debridement and conventional instrumentation on the levels of TNF-α in gingival crevicular fluid of patients with chronic periodontitis

“…The efficiency of VUS for the removal of microbial biofilms has been demonstrated to be as good as conventional periodontal treatment in a study performed by some investigators. 22 The elimination of predisposing factors, including calculus, dental stains, false restorations, and similar factors for the retention of dental plaque in both the VUS and S/RP groups showed to facilitate the effective brushing of the patients. The findings of our study related to dental plaque scores were in accordance with various other studies in which different methods were applied for the nonsurgical periodontal treatment.…”

“…These results comply with those of several other studies. 22,24 It was observed that there was a statistically significant reduction in the mean values of PD from the baseline to the 6 th month in the S/RP and VUS groups. In the comparison of the groups, the mean values of PD in the S/RP group declined from 3.74 ±0.55 mm to 2.27 ±0.23 mm.…”

“…The findings of our study related to dental plaque scores were in accordance with various other studies in which different methods were applied for the nonsurgical periodontal treatment. 13,22,23 During inf lammation, observable changes occur in the gingival tissues. To determine the extent of these gingival changes subjectively, dif ferent gingival indexes are used, such as the Löe and Silness Gingival index.…”

“…In the split-mouth design study performed by Christgau et al who examined the efficiency of VUS and S/RP in a group of 20 patients with chronic periodontitis, similar differences were observed between the 2 groups at the end of 6-month period. 22 In another study, PI -plaque index; GI -gingival index; PD -probing depth; CAL -clinical attachment level; TNF-α -tumor necrosis factor alpha; VUS -vector ultrasonic system; S/RP -scaling and root planning; SD -standard deviation. PI -plaque index; GI -gingival index; PD -probing depth; CAL -clinical attachment level; VUS -vector ultrasonic system; S/RP-scaling and root planning; SD -standard deviation.…”