Tooth surfaces treated in situ with periodontal instruments. Scanning electron microscopic studies

Subgingival instrumentation to remove simulated plaque in vitro: influence of operators’ experience and type of instrument

“…We found the highest loss of root substance using GRA regardless of operators' experience, corroborating with previous results [27], but being in conflict with studies showing no difference of destruction caused by hand versus power-driven instruments [15,[28][29][30]. According to Schmidlin et al [27], it might be helpful to consider the goal of the treatment: in the current investigation, operators aimed at removing only simulated plaque, as usually required during SPT [17], where plaque disruption without extensive cementum removal is sufficient to achieve good clinical results [31,32].…”

A Comparison of Postsurgical Healing Following Debridement by Ultrasonic or Hand Instruments

“…11,13 Aleo et al 24 have shown the presence of endotoxin in cementum involved by periodontal disease. Baumhammers and Rohrbaugh 25 found that human calculus was permeable to endotoxin, and Jones et al 26 dem onstrated that microscopic amounts of calculus were often retained after scaling. It is likely that water lavage reduces the concentration of toxins in addition to other microbial metabolites in both cementum and retained calculus deposits, thus accelerating the rate of postoperative healing.…”

In vitro analysis of ‘smear layer’ on human dentine using ac-impedance spectroscopy

“…3 Furthermore, it can be created by tooth paste, prophylaxis paste and orangewood sticks. 1 It is composed of an organic film less than 0.5 mm thick 4 and other components including hydroxyapatite crystals, blood, saliva and bacteria.…”