Sonic, ultrasonic and manual instruments in the control of periodontal disease: an in vitro evaluation

Abstract

The purpose of this study was evaluating the damage caused by root planning through different types of instrumentation. To perform it, 30 artificial teeth were selected from Prodens trademark, and their roots were divided in longitudinal sense and later included partly in blocks type IV plaster. Next they were submitted to three different types of root instrumentation: manual, sonic and ultrasonic. In each group 15 strokes apex coronary was carried out. After the analysis of root structures, they were evaluated through a stereoscope with 8x magnification; the images were scanned and the damage caused to the dentin surface was measured in total area with software “Image J”. The measures noted were statistical analyzed trough the tests ANOVA/Tukey, comparing the different types of instrumentation. After instrumentation, statistical difference was found (p <0.001) among the three groups. A lower wear of the root structure was obtained with manual instrument with an average of 0.62mm2, followed by the sonic tool wear of 1.07mm2, but a greater wear was found with the ultrasonic instrument: 1.56mm2. In this study was possible conclude that the instrumentation with sonic and ultrasonic methods may provoke more damage in the root estructures.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Three Different Instruments in the Removal of Amalgam Overhang: An In Vitro Study

“…In this process, damage to the adjacent tooth structure and soft tissue is an expected occurrence. Hand tools (sickle scaler and curettes) caused the minimum tooth damage in the current study, which was similar to the findings of Molina et al 14 and Spinks et al 18 Chan et al reported that flame-shaped diamond bur resulted in a significantly higher percentage of tooth damage compared to the other two experimented methods, indicating that burs are inherently rigid instruments which can access both the gingival and interproximal areas. 20 An evident property in all of the study groups was a deficiency in restoration margins, in the form of gap and void.…”

“…As for sickle scaler, however, it was 15 minutes. 14 Then, an explorer was used to evaluate the overhang removal efficacy, which was defined as follows: • Score 0: Complete overhang removal • Score 1: Amalgam remaining in cavosurface Afterward, the operation area was photographed with a SONY camera; model DSC-W570/16.1 M.P (Tokyo, Japan). A stereo microscope (model: LX-4 SZX7, Olympus, JAPAN) with a magnification of ×10 was used to conduct a more accurate evaluation of the samples in terms of surface smoothness, tooth damage, the gap in the tooth and restoration interface.…”

Effects of ultrasonic instrumentation on enamel surfaces with various defects

“…The aims of periodontal therapy include removal of the dental biofilm, dental calculus and bacterial toxins. Elimination of these deposits is achieved by scaling, which can be performed using hand instruments or an ultrasonic device . Of late, ultrasonic scalers are commonly being used because they require less time for scaling compared to hand instruments, increase working efficiency by decreasing the chair time for patients and offer ergonomic benefits to clinicians .…”