Safety and efficiency of novel sonic scaler tips in vitro

Petersilka, Gregor J.; Draenert, M.E.; Mehl, Albert; Hickel, Reinhard; Flemmig, Thomas Frank

doi:10.1034/j.1600-051x.2003.00300.x

Cited by 22 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given their average plaque index of 40%, their oral-health-related cooperation can only be described as moderate. Although the mean clinical changes seem rather slight, they are very similar to those of Petersilka et al (2003). An average bleeding index of ca.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

A new ultrasonic device in maintenance therapy: perception of pain and clinical efficacy

Kocher

Fanghänel

Schwahn

et al. 2005

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

A new ultrasonic device in maintenance therapy: perception of pain and clinical efficacy

Kocher

Fanghänel

Schwahn

et al. 2005

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hand instrumentation is still considered the gold standard and allows the sufficient cleaning of the periodontal pockets [10]. Anatomical peculiarities like root curvatures or invaginations can make it difficult to remove bacterial deposits and biofilms completely from root surfaces by means of mechanical methods [11,12]. Several treatment options are available to support the efficacy of instrumentation, for example the usage of local antibiotics or antimicrobials [13] or photodynamic therapy (PDT).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between scaling-root-planing (SRP) and SRP/photodynamic therapy: six-month study

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe purpose of this long-term clinical study was to examine the additional efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) to scaling and root planing (SRP) in patients with chronic periodontal disease.MethodsA total of 22 patients (mean age: 59.3 ± 11.7 years) with chronic periodontal disease and four teeth with probing depth ≥ 5 mm were enrolled in the study. Inclusion criteria were: no systemic disease, no smoking, no pregnancy and no long-term medication. Beside the anamnesis, the following clinical parameters were assessed at baseline (one week before therapy), and one, three and six months after the therapy: bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI) probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment loss. All measurements were done by the same examiner with a fixed periodontal probe (PCP 12, Hu-Friedy) at six measurements/tooth. In each patient, two teeth were treated with SRP alone and two teeth with SRP and PDT (Periowave, Ondine Biopharma, Vancouver, Canada). The nonparametric Wilcoxon test for paired samples was used for comparison of the effect of the two treatments (p ≤ 0.05).ResultsAfter both types of treatment, the number of teeth positive for BOP declined. At baseline, the CAL measured 7.2 ± 1.2 mm (SRP) or 8.1 ± 1.3 mm (SRP/PDT); one, three and six months after both types of treatment an improvement was observed. At baseline, the probing depth was 5.9 ± 0.8 mm (SRP) or 6.4 ± 0.8 mm (SRP/PDT); after six months, an improvement of 2.4 ± 0.6 mm (SRP) or 2.9 ± 0.8 mm (SRP/PDT) was found. The greater reduction of the PD, achieved by a combination of SRP/PDT, was statistically significant after six months (p = 0.007).ConclusionThis clinical study demonstrates that SRP in combination with PDT seems to be effective and is therefore suitable as an adjuvant therapy to the mechanical conditioning of the periodontal pockets in patients with chronic periodontal diseases.

show abstract

“…The techniques used for scaling, root planning, and curettage are hand instrumentation, sonic and ultrasonic instrumentation, laser scaling, demineralization, and chemical scaling. Currently, hand instruments and sonic and ultrasonic scalers are used most frequently [3]. Ultrasonic and sonic scalers are referred to as power-driven scalers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study

Yousefimanesh

Robati

Kadkhodazadeh

et al. 2012

J Periodontal Implant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe effects of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on tooth surfaces seem to differ with regard to the root surface roughness they produce. This study aimed to compare the results of scaling using magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on extracted teeth.MethodsForty-four human extracted teeth were assigned to four study groups (n=11). In two groups (C100 and C200), the teeth were scaled using a magnetostrictive device and two different lateral forces: 100 g and 200 g, respectively. In the other two groups (P100 and P200), the teeth were scaled with a piezoelectric device with 100 g and 200 g of lateral force, respectively. he teeth were scaled and the data on the duration of scaling and the amount of surface were collected and analyzed using the t-test.ResultsThe mean time needed for instrumentation for the piezoelectric and magnetostrictive devices was 50:54 and 41:10, respectively, but their difference was not statistically significant (P=0.171). For root surface roughness, we only found a statistically significantly poorer result for the C200 group in comparison to the P200 group (P=0.033).ConclusionsThis study revealed that applying a piezoelectric scaler with 200 g of lateral force leaves smoother surfaces than a magnetostrictive device with the same lateral force.

show abstract

Safety and efficiency of novel sonic scaler tips in vitro

Abstract: The novel scaler tip appears to be significantly more efficient in calculus removal and less damaging to the root surface than the assessed conventional tip.

Cited by 22 publications

References 17 publications

A new ultrasonic device in maintenance therapy: perception of pain and clinical efficacy

A new ultrasonic device in maintenance therapy: perception of pain and clinical efficacy

Comparison between scaling-root-planing (SRP) and SRP/photodynamic therapy: six-month study

A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About