Top

Published in:

01-05-2017 | Original Article

Removal of simulated biofilm: an evaluation of the effect on root surfaces roughness after scaling

Authors: Christian Graetz, Anna Plaumann, Robert Wittich, Claudia Springer, Maren Kahl, Christof E. Dörfer, Karim Fawzy El-Sayed

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 4/2017

Abstract

Background

Despite the development of less invasive devices, a debate exists about the benefits and risks of hand versus powered root surface instrumentation used in supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). The aim of the in vitro study was to differentially compare plaque removal efficacy and root surface roughening of newly developed sonic, ultrasonic scaler, and curettes in the hands of experienced versus less experienced operators.

Materials and methods

Sonic (AIR), ultrasonic devices (TIG), and double-gracey curettes (GRA) were utilized by seven experienced (EO) and four less experienced operators (LO) for root surface instrumentation of standardized plastic teeth on manikins’ heads in a randomized sequence. The proportion of residual simulated plaque (RSP area in %) was planimetrically assessed, and the average root surface roughness produced (Ra and ∆Ra in μm) was measured by a precision profilometer.

Results

The uninstrumented root surfaces showed a Ra of (median (Q25/Q75)) 1.00 μm (0.83/1.16). Following instrumentation, EO left significantly less RSP than LO regardless of the used instruments (20.00 % (10.00/34.00) vs. 26.00 % (12.00/44.00) p < 0.001), whereas the ∆Ra values (0.29 μm (−0.04/0.96) vs. 0.35 μm (−0.04/1.01), p = 0.237) failed to show significant differences. The surface roughness was higher with GRA followed by AIR then TIG regardless of operators’ experience (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Within the limits of the present study, the sonic device was most efficient in plaque removal, while the ultrasonic device produced the least surface roughness.

Clinical relevance

All three tested instruments seem effective in the mechanical root debridement during SPT, whereat the ultrasonic device show the smoothest root surface of all.

Drisko CH (2001) Nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Periodontol 2000(25):77–88CrossRef

Khosravi M, Bahrami ZS, Atabaki MS, Shokrgozar MA, Shokri F (2004) Comparative effectiveness of hand and ultrasonic instrumentations in root surface planing in vitro. J Clin Periodontol 31:160–5. doi:10.1111/j.0303-6979.2004.00458.x CrossRefPubMed

Tunkel J, Heinecke A, Flemmig TF (2002) A systematic review of efficacy of machine-driven and manual subgingival debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 29(Suppl 3):72–81, discussion 90–1 CrossRefPubMed

Eick S, Bender P, Flury S, Lussi A, Sculean A (2013) 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. Clin Oral Investig 17:397–404. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0719-z CrossRefPubMed

Walmsley AD, Lea SC, Landini G, Moses AJ (2008) Advances in power driven pocket/root instrumentation. J Clin Periodontol 35:22–8. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01258.x CrossRefPubMed

Drisko CL (1993) Scaling and root planing without overinstrumentation: hand versus power-driven scalers. Curr Opin Periodontol:78–88

Hagi TT, Hofmanner P, Salvi GE, Ramseier CA, Sculean A (2013) Clinical outcomes following subgingival application of a novel erythritol powder by means of air polishing in supportive periodontal therapy: a randomized, controlled clinical study. Quintessence Int 44:753–61. doi:10.3290/j.qi.a30606 PubMed

Sculean A, Bastendorf KD, Becker C, Bush B, Einwag J, Lanoway C, Platzer U, Schmage P, Schoeneich B, Walter C, Wennstrom JL, Flemmig TF (2013) A paradigm shift in mechanical biofilm management? Subgingival air polishing: a new way to improve mechanical biofilm management in the dental practice. Quintessence Int 44:475–7. doi:10.3290/j.qi.a29615 PubMed

Graetz C, Schwendicke F, Plaumann A, Rauschenbach S, Springer C, Kahl M, Salzer S, Dorfer CE (2015) Subgingival instrumentation to remove simulated plaque in vitro: influence of operators' experience and type of instrument. Clin Oral Investig 19:987–95. doi:10.1007/s00784-014-1319-x CrossRefPubMed

10.

Rühling A, Schlemme H, Konig J, Kocher T, Schwahn C, Plagmann HC (2002) Learning root debridement with curettes and power-driven instruments. Part I: a training program to increase effectivity. J Clin Periodontol 29:622–9CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kocher T, Ruhling A, Momsen H, Plagmann HC (1997) Effectiveness of subgingival instrumentation with power-driven instruments in the hands of experienced and inexperienced operators. A study on manikins. J Clin Periodontol 24:498–504CrossRefPubMed

12.

Oberholzer R, Rateitschak KH (1996) Root cleaning or root smoothing. An in vivo study. J Clin Periodontol 23:326–30CrossRefPubMed

13.

Jones WA, O'Leary TJ (1978) The effectiveness of in vivo root planing in removing bacterial endotoxin from the roots of periodontally involved teeth. J Periodontol 49:337–42. doi:10.1902/jop.1978.49.7.337 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Cobb CM (2002) Clinical significance of non-surgical periodontal therapy: an evidence-based perspective of scaling and root planing. J Clin Periodontol 29(Suppl 2):6–16PubMed

15.

König J, Ruhling A, Schlemme H, Kocher T, Schwahn C, Plagmann HC (2002) Learning root debridement with curettes and power-driven instruments in vitro: the role of operator motivation and self-assessment. Eur J Dent Educ 6:169–75, doi: 258 [pii] CrossRefPubMed

16.

Dahiya P, Kamal R, Gupta R, Pandit N (2011) Comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: a scanning electron microscopy study. Contemp Clin Dent 2:79–83. doi:10.4103/0976-237X.83065 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Lie T, Leknes KN (1985) Evaluation of the effect on root surfaces of air turbine scalers and ultrasonic instrumentation. J Periodontol 56:522–31. doi:10.1902/jop.1985.56.9.522 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kumar P, Das SJ, Sonowal ST, Chawla J (2015) Comparison of root surface roughness produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scalers: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 9:ZC56–60. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2015/13744.6828

19.

Adair JG (1984) The Hawthorne effect: a reconsideration of the methodological artifact. J Appl Psychol 69:334–345CrossRef

20.

Ewen SJ, Gwinnett AJ (1977) A scanning electron microscopic study of teeth following periodontal instrumentation. J Periodontol 48:92–7. doi:10.1902/jop.1977.48.2.92 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Wilkinson RF, Maybury JE (1973) Scanning electron microscopy of the root surface following instrumentation. J Periodontol 44:559–63. doi:10.1902/jop.1973.44.9.559 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Singh S, Uppoor A, Nayak D (2012) A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments—an in vitro profilometric and SEM study. J Appl Oral Sci 20:21–6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Solis Moreno C, Santos A, Nart J, Levi P, Velasquez A, Sanz Moliner J (2012) Evaluation of root surface microtopography following the use of four instrumentation systems by confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy: an in vitro study. J Periodontal Res 47:608–15. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0765.2012.01473.x CrossRefPubMed

24.

Cheetham WA, Wilson M, Kieser JB (1988) Root surface debridement—an in vitro assessment. J Clin Periodontol 15:288–92CrossRefPubMed

25.

Tal H, Panno JM, Vaidyanathan TK (1985) Scanning electron microscope evaluation of wear of dental curettes during standardized root planing. J Periodontol 56:532–6. doi:10.1902/jop.1985.56.9.532 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Lee A, Heasman PA, Kelly PJ (1996) An in vitro comparative study of a reciprocating scaler for root surface debridement. J Dent 24:81–6CrossRefPubMed

27.

Aspriello SD, Piemontese M, Levrini L, Sauro S (2011) Ultramorphology of the root surface subsequent to hand-ultrasonic simultaneous instrumentation during non-surgical periodontal treatments: an in vitro study. J Appl Oral Sci 19:74–81CrossRefPubMed

28.

Mishra MK, Prakash S (2013) A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between hand instrument, ultrasonic scaling and erbium doped:Yttirum aluminum garnet laser on root surface: a morphological and thermal analysis. Contemp Clin Dent 4:198–205. doi:10.4103/0976-237X.114881 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Rühling A, Bernhardt O, Kocher T (2005) Subgingival debridement with a teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments and assessment of substance removal on extracted teeth. Quintessence Int 36:446–52PubMed

30.

Walmsley AD, Lea SC, Felver B, King DC, Price GJ (2013) Mapping cavitation activity around dental ultrasonic tips. Clin Oral Investig 17:1227–34. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0802-5 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Kocher T, Ruhling A, Herweg M, Plagman HC (1996) Proof of efficacy of different modified sonic scaler inserts used for debridement in furcations—a dummy head trial. J Clin Periodontol 23:662–9CrossRefPubMed

32.

Fleischer HC, Mellonig JT, Brayer WK, Gray JL, Barnett JD (1989) Scaling and root planing efficacy in multirooted teeth. J Periodontol 60:402–9. doi:10.1902/jop.1989.60.7.402 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Paramashivaiah R, Prabhuji ML (2013) Mechanized scaling with ultrasonics: perils and proactive measures. J Indian Soc Periodontol 17:423–428. doi:10.4103/0972-124X.118310 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Graetz C, Plaumann A, Bielfeldt J, Tillner A, Salzer S, Dorfer CE (2015) Efficacy versus health risks: an in vitro evaluation of power-driven scalers. J Indian Soc Periodontol 19:18–24. doi:10.4103/0972-124X.145796 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Removal of simulated biofilm: an evaluation of the effect on root surfaces roughness after scaling
Authors: Christian Graetz
Anna Plaumann
Robert Wittich
Claudia Springer
Maren Kahl
Christof E. Dörfer
Karim Fawzy El-Sayed
Publication date: 01-05-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1861-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Removal of simulated biofilm: an evaluation of the effect on root surfaces roughness after scaling

Abstract

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Symmetry of fMRI activation in the primary sensorimotor cortex during unilateral chewing

In vivo determination of tooth mobility after fixed orthodontic appliance therapy with a novel intraoral measurement device

Association between proxy-reported sleep bruxism and quality of life aspects in Colombian children of different social layers

Effect of sodium hypochlorite irrigation with or without surfactants on the bond strength of an epoxy-based sealer to dentin

Presence of plaque, gingivitis and caries in Sudanese children with congenital heart defects

Skin entrance dose with and without lead apron in digital panoramic radiography for selected sensitive body regions