Learning root debridement with curettes and power-driven instruments. Part II: Clinical results following mechanical, nonsurgical therapy

Training in the use of the water jet and cold atmospheric plasma jet for the decontamination of dental implants

OBJECTIVES

Clinical trials testing new devices require prior training on dummies to minimize the "learning curve" for patients. Dentists were trained using a novel water jet device for mechanical cleaning of dental implants and with a novel cold plasma device for surface functionalisation during a simulated open flap peri-implantitis therapy. The hypothesis was that there would be a learning curve for both devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

11 dentists instrumented 44 implants in a dummy-fixed jaw model. The effect of the water jet treatment was assessed as stain removal and the effect of cold plasma treatment as surface wettability. Both results were analysed using photographs. To improve treatment skills, each dentist treated four implants and checked the results immediately after the treatment as feedback.

RESULTS

Water jet treatment significantly improved from the first to the second implant from 62.7% to 75.3% stain removal, with no further improvement up to the fourth implant. The wettability with cold plasma application reached immediately a high level at the first implant and was unchanged to the 4th implant (mean scores 2.7 out of 3).

CONCLUSION

A moderate learning curve was found for handling of the water jet but none for handling of the cold plasma.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Scientific rational for study: Two new devices were developed for peri-implantitis treatment (Dental water jet, cold plasma). Dentists were trained in the use of these devices prior to the trial to minimize learning effects.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Experienced dentists learn the handling of the water jet very rapidly and for cold plasma they do not need much training.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

A clinical study is in process. When the planned clinical study will be finished, we will find out, if this dummy head exercise really minimised the learning curve for these devices.

A Sex-Specific Evaluation of Dental Students' Ability to Perform Subgingival Debridement: Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

A successful periodontitis treatment demands good manual skills. A correlation between biological sex and dental students' manual dexterity is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines performance differences between male and female students within subgingival debridement.

METHODS

A total of 75 third-year dental students were divided by biological sex (male/female) and randomly assigned to one of two work methods (manual curettes n=38; power-driven instruments n=37). Students were trained on periodontitis models for 25 minutes daily over 10 days using the assigned manual or power-driven instrument. Practical training included subgingival debridement of all tooth types on phantom heads. Practical exams were performed after the training session (T1) and after 6 months (T2), and comprised subgingival debridement of four teeth within 20 minutes. The percentage of debrided root surface was assessed and statistically analyzed using a linear mixed-effects regression model (P<.05).

RESULTS

The analysis is based on 68 students (both groups n=34). The percentage of cleaned surfaces was not significantly different (P=.40) between male (mean 81.6%, SD 18.2%) and female (mean 76.3%, SD 21.1%) students, irrespective of the instrument used. The use of power-driven instruments (mean 81.3%, SD 20.5%) led to significantly better results than the use of manual curettes (mean 75.4%, SD 19.4%; P=.02), and the overall performance decreased over time (T1: mean 84.5%, SD 17.5%; T2: mean 72.3%, SD 20.8%; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Female and male students performed equally well in subgingival debridement. Therefore, sex-differentiated teaching methods are not necessary.

Influence of motivation and a new digitized training program on undergraduate dental students during preclinical scaling training

BACKGROUND

The current study evaluated whether a new digitized scaling training program (DTP: n = 30; supervisor-student-ratio 1:10) improves the performance of undergraduate dental student during a preclinical course in regard to two different instruments [sonic scalers (AIR) and Gracey curettes (GRA)] compared to a conventional training program (CTP: n = 19; supervisor-student-ratio 1:4).

METHODS

All the participants received a two-hour lecture on both instruments, followed by a 12-week period with a weekly training program lasting 45 min (10 sessions); one group was supported by DTP. At the end of the training phase, all the participants performed the subgingival scaling of six equivalent test teeth using GRA and AIR. Treatment time, proportion of removed simulated biofilm (relative cleaning efficacy, RCE-b) and hard deposits (RCE-d) were recorded. By using a pseudonymized questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale, self-assessment of scaling effort, handling, root surface roughness/destruction and effectiveness were evaluated. In addition, personal data such as age, gender, handedness, regularity of playing computer games/consoles and previous dental/technical or medical education were elevated and correlated with cleaning efficacy.

RESULTS

The DTP participants showed higher effectiveness in RCE-b compared to those who used the CTP with GRA (71.54% vs. 67.23%, p = 0.004) and AIR (71.75% vs. 62.63%, p ≤ 0.001), and the DTP students were faster with both instruments (p ≤ 0.001). For RCE-d, there was no significant difference between the DTP and CTP groups (GRA p = 0.471; AIR p = 0.158), whereas DTP showed better RCE-d results with GRA versus AIR (84.68% vs. 77.85%, p < 0.001). According to the questionnaire, no significant differences were detected between the training groups in terms of self-assessment, handling, treatment time, root surface roughness/destruction or effectiveness of the instruments. The CTP group favored AIR compared to GRA regarding the fatigue effect. The CTP and playing computer games/consoles regularly was correlated with lower RCE-b, whereas previous education in medicine/dentistry was correlated with higher RCE-b values.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the study, the DTP with a reduced supervision effort compared to the CTP resulted in higher effectiveness and lower instrumentation time for removing simulated biofilms.

Evaluation of a systematic digitized training program on the effectivity of subgingival instrumentation with curettes and sonic scalers in vitro

Objectives

Whereas the key role of subgingival instrumentation in periodontal therapy is well known, the influence of operators’ experience/training with different devices on treatment results is yet uncertain. Therefore, we assessed untrained undergraduate students, working on manikins, as to how effectively they learn to use curettes (GRA) and sonic scalers (AIR); hypothesizing that AIR will result in higher relative cleaning efficacy (RCE) than GRA.

Material and methods

Before baseline evaluation (T0), 30 operators (9 males, 21 females) received a 2-h theoretical lesson for both instruments, followed by a 12-week period with a weekly digitized training program for 45 min. During three sessions (T1–T3), the operators had to instrument six equivalent test teeth with GRA and AIR. At T0–T3, treatment time, proportion of removed simulated biofilm (RCE-b), and hard deposits (RCE-d) were measured.

Results

At T0, RCE-b was in mean(SD) 64.18(25.74) % for GRA, 62.25(26.69) % for AIR; (p = 0.172) and RCE-d 85.48(12.32) %/ 65.71(15.27) % (p < 0.001). At T3, operators reached highest RCE-b in both groups (GRA/AIR 71.54(23.90) %/71.75(23.05)%; p = 0.864); RCE-d GRA/AIR: 84.68(16.84) %/77.85(13.98) %; p < 0.001). Both groups achieved shorter treatment times after training. At T3, using curettes was faster (GRA/AIR 16.67(3.31) min/19.80(4.52) min; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

After systematic digitized training, untrained operators were able to clean 70% of the root surfaces with curettes and sonic scalers.

Clinical relevance

It can be concluded that a systematic digitized and interactive training program in manikin heads is helpful in the training of root surface debridement.

Comparative effectiveness of hand scaling by undergraduate dental students following a two-week pre-clinical training course

BACKGROUND

The Bologna reform resulted in a drastic restructuring of pre-clinical training courses at the University of Zurich. The aim of this study was to assess student pre-clinical scaling/root planning skills after just 8.5 hours of manual training.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three consecutive classes of dental students (n = 41; n = 34; n = 48) were tasked with removing lacquer concrement from the maxillary left canine on a typodont using Gracey and universal (Deppeler M23A) curettes. At baseline (prior to instruction), a timed five-minute session of scaling/root planning was undertaken. The second scaling/root planning session was held immediately following training. Eight experienced dental hygienists and eight lay people served as positive and negative controls, using the same instruments and time limit, respectively. Instrumented teeth were collected, scanned and planimetrically analysed for the percentage of tooth surface cleaned. Statistical analyses were performed to assess the dental students' improvement after the training (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) and to compare it to that of laypeople and dental hygienists (Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test followed by Conover's post hoc test).

RESULTS

At baseline, the dental students' mean scaling scores of the cleaned surfaces were not significantly different than those of laypeople (29.8%, 31.0%, 42% vs 27.9%). However, after 8.5 hours of manual training, the students' ability to clean the maxillary tooth improved significantly and they achieved mean removal values of 61.7%, 79.5% and 76% compared to the 67.4% (P < .001) of the experienced dental hygienists (Tables Tables  and ). There were no statistically significant differences between the scores achieved by students after training and those achieved by experienced dental hygienists.

CONCLUSION

A shortened pre-clinical training time was sufficient for students to acquire the basic scaling/root planning skills needed in preparation for clinical training. Further research is needed to identify ways to help students consistently reach highest skill levels.

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

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty regarding the benefits and risks of hand versus powered root surface instrumentation. Moreover, the influence of operators' experience on treatment results is unclear. We compared newly developed sonic, ultrasonic and hand instruments, hypothesizing that powered devices allow to remove more simulated plaque in less time than hand instruments, with significant influence of operators' experience.

METHODS

Sonic scaler (AIR), ultrasonic scaler (TIG) device and double Gracey curettes (GRA) were utilized by seven experienced operators (EOs) and four less experienced operators (LOs) in periodontitis manikin heads. The time required for treatment, the proportion of residual-simulated plaque and the weight loss caused by scaling as a proxy for root surface destruction were measured.

RESULTS

Using different instruments led to significantly different proportions of removed simulated plaque regardless of operators' experience (AIR, 80.2 ± 21.3 %, TIG, 69.9 ± 22.5 %, GRA, 73.1 ± 20.0 %) (p < 0.001). Treatment times did not significantly differ between EO and LO (p > 0.05). Weight loss was increased when using hand instead of powered instruments (p < 0.001), with significantly higher weight loss induced by LO than EO (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Within the present study, EO did not remove more simulated plaque in less time but induced less root surface destruction. Using a sonic device was most beneficial for plaque removal.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Successful root surface debridement requires both time and training regardless of the used instrument. Hand instruments might cause more damage to root surfaces, especially in the hands of less experienced operators.

Local Anti-Infective Therapy: Mechanical and Physical Approaches. A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although mechanical non-surgical therapy (scaling and root planing) is the most common means of initial treatment of periodontal diseases, the relative clinical efficacy of various methods, including manual versus machine-driven, with or without adjunctive agents, has not been determined.

RATIONALE

This systematic review analyzes the literature in an effort to identify the most effective therapies, based on both clinical and patient-centered outcomes.

FOCUSED QUESTION

In patients with periodontitis, what is the effect of mechanically-driven instrumentation (e.g., power-driven) and/or subgingival irrigation with and without manual instrumentation compared to manual instrumentation alone?

SEARCH PROTOCOL

Two investigators examined MEDLINE and the Cochrane Oral Health Group specialized registry for clinical trials published in English. Hand searches were performed of the International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontology, and Journal of Periodontal Research. Searches were performed for articles published through April 2002. Editors of these journals were asked to provide information on articles currently under review. In addition, an electronic discussion group on periodontal diseases and treatment was contacted, as were manufacturers of manual and mechanical instruments and of adjunctive agents.

SELECTION CRITERIA

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Only randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, or case-control studies at least 3 months long were included. All studies had to compare manual instrumentation (MI; scaling and root planing [SRP]) alone with some other form of non-surgical therapy. These included MI versus mechanically-driven instruments (MDI) alone; MI versus MI plus MDI; MI versus MDI plus an agent (e.g., chlorhexidine); and MI versus subgingival irrigation (SGI) delivered in conjunction with MI or MDI.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies not meeting the inclusion criteria or those treating periodontal diseases as a manifestation or complication of some other disease or disorder were not included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Probing depth, clinical attachment level, bleeding on probing, and gingival recession were the primary outcomes. Because of the heterogeneity of the patient populations, treatments, and outcome measures, meta-analysis was not appropriate. Only in-study data were compared. Four of the studies required extrapolating data from figures and graphs, resulting in questionable accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

1. Nine studies, representing a study population of 129, were included in the review. 2. Five studies compared MI with MDI alone. The other 4 compared MI alone to MI plus SGI or subgingival tissue treatment. 3. There was comparable efficacy between MI and MDI when treating single-rooted teeth. 4. The use of SGI or subgingival tissue treatment as an adjunct to MI provided no additional benefit compared to MI alone. 5. Findings reported in the review must be interpreted with considerable caution, as lack of study heterogeneity made meta-analysis unfeasible and the need to extrapolate outcomes values from graphs and figures may have resulted in some inaccuracy.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

1. Manual and mechanically-driven instrumentation appears comparable in affecting improved clinical outcomes. 2. Instrumentation time for MI and MDI were similar, except for 1 study in which MDI was significantly shorter. 3. Adjunctive SGI plus MI and subgingival tissue treatment result in similar clinical outcomes when compared to MI alone. 4. If study data are to be effectively and analytically combined to facilitate meaningful comparisons of treatment outcomes, detailed and standardized study designs must be developed and used consistently in clinical trials.