Cleaning ability and induced dentin loss of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic instrument at different power settings

Effects of a new magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler and a traditional piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler on root surfaces and patient complaints

Tooth wear and pain are the primary concerns of patients undergoing periodontal scaling. The aims of this study were to compare the effects of a new magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler and a traditional piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler on tooth surface roughness and calculus removal and to determine their impacts on patient discomfort during supragingival cleaning. This article had two parts: an in vitro study and a clinical study. In the in vitro study, thirty teeth with subgingival calculus were randomly assigned to two scaling treatment groups: magnetostrictive scalers (n = 15) and piezoelectric scalers (n = 15). Surface roughness measurements were taken at baseline and after scaling, and the root samples were visualised by SEM after scaling. Additionally, a single-centre randomised split-mouth clinical trial was conducted. Eighty-five participants diagnosed with chronic gingivitis or periodontitis were randomly assigned to receive supragingival scaling. The magnetostrictive scaler was used in half of the mouths (n = 85), and the piezoelectric scaler was used in the other half of the mouths (n = 85). Data on pain, noise, and vibration were collected using a VAS questionnaire, and the operating time was recorded. In both in vitro and clinical studies, magnetostrictive scalers were reported to be more effective than piezoelectric scalers in removing dental deposits (P < 0.05). Additionally, the root surface after scaling with the magnetostrictive scaler was smoother than that after scaling with the piezoelectric scaler in the in vitro study (P = 0.02). SEM examination also revealed that fewer dental materials were lost after instrumentation with the magnetostrictive scaler than after instrumentation with the piezoelectric scaler. Piezoelectric scalers caused less discomfort to patients in terms of pain, noise, and vibration than magnetostrictive scalers (P < 0.05). According to this clinical study, the magnetostrictive scaler caused more discomfort during supragingival scaling than the piezoelectric scaler. Moreover, the magnetostrictive scaler was also more efficient and produced a smoother root surface with less material loss after scaling than the piezoelectric scaler, as demonstrated in the in vitro study.

Assessing the effect of piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler tip wear on root surface roughness under influence of various working parameters: A profilometric and atomic force microscopic study

Background

Assessing the effect of scaler tip wear on the root surface roughness using piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling device under influence of various working parameters, i.e. power setting, lateral force, and instrumentation time.

Materials and Methods

An experimental study was conducted using 160 single-rooted tooth samples divided into two groups of new (n = 80) and worn tips (n = 80). Samples were prepared to examine the root surface roughness after being instrumented by new and worn piezoelectric ultrasonic tips (8 new/8 worn) at different parameters. The erosion ratio (ER) of the new/worn tip was examined under an atomic force microscope and roughness over root surface was measured by a contact surface profilometer. One-way analysis of variance test, post hoc Tukey's test, and independent t-test were used for intragroup, pair-wise multiple comparisons and intergroup comparison of average roughness (Ra) value.

Results

A statistically significant difference was found between the ER of new and worn scaler tips (P < 0.001). Intragroup comparison between subgroups 1 and 8 showed a higher Ra value in both the groups (P < 0.005). There was a significantly higher Ra value of worn tips compared to new tips (P < 0.05). Significantly higher mean Ra value was shown when lateral force changed from 50 g to 100 g (P < 0.005).

Conclusions

Increasing value of power setting, lateral force, and instrumentation time caused more surface roughness in worn-out scaler tips compared to new scaler tips. Lateral force and instrumentation time proved to be a major factor influencing surface roughness.

In vitro evaluation of a novel biofilm remover

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a novel device for its efficacy in removing experimental biofilm from root surfaces and its potential for concomitantly removing/roughening the surface substance.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A novel acrylic rotary device (biofilm remover, BR) was tested in vitro in three experiments: surface loss, surface roughness [positive controls: Perioset (PS) and Proxoshape (PR)] and biofilm removal [positive controls: ultrasonic (US) and PS]. Surface loss/surface roughness was evaluated for dentin samples instrumented for three 20 s periods. The calcium removed during instrumentation was analysed after each interval and cumulatively, using atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS). Surface roughness was measured using profilometric analysis. Biofilm removal was evaluated on dentin specimens coated with a 64.5 h 6-species in vitro formed biofilm, after one 20 s treatment. Surface loss was analysed using anova with Scheffé post hoc test, and surface roughness/biofilm removal was analysed using Mann-Whitney test (all P ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS

Significantly less substance loss [μg (± 1 SD)] was observed with the novel device at all time points, both interval and cumulative (1.0 (± 0.5) versus 9.3 (± 3.2) PS and 9.9 (± 1.9) PR at 60 s). Surface roughness [μm (95% CI)] was significantly lower for BR than for PS and PR [0.00 (-0.01, 0.08) 0.20 (0.16, 0.27) and 0.21 (0.19, 0.24) at 60 s]. Significantly less biofilm bacteria remained after treatment with both BR 4.5 (-0.1, 16.2) and US 1.9 (-0.2, 14.3), compared to PS 52 (27.9, 82.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel biofilm remover was less damaging to dentin surfaces, while removing biofilm at least as effectively as devices used in this study.

Mechanized scaling with ultrasonics: Perils and proactive measures

Mechanized scaling for plaque removal is a routine procedure in the practice of periodontics. Though it appears innocuous by itself, there are retinues of hazards associated with it on various organ systems in the body. Some of these unwanted effects and measures to avoid or ameliorate the same are elaborated here. Exposure to ultrasonic scaling is inevitable before any other treatment procedure. Aerosol contamination, vibrational hazards, thermal effects on the dental pulp, altered vascular dynamics, disruption in electromagnetic device, diminished hearing and dental unit waterline contamination are some of the probable off-shoots a patient has to bear. Uses of barrier devices, proper attention to usage of equipment, protection for ear and water treatment are few of solutions for the same. Though documented evidence for the existence of all effects is lacking, it is never the less significant for the overall safety of the patient. A conscientious clinician should therefore inculcate the available steps to overcome the hazards of ultrasonic scaling.