Removal of hard tooth structure by ROOTSHAPE root planing files used with a modified EVA contra-angle

Influence of the Scalpel Finishing Technique on Marginal Gap Formation in Class II Resin Composite Restorations

OBJECTIVES

Modern adhesives and composites allow the restoration of deep defects. In such cases, the matrix technique is particularly challenging, and excess composite is a common problem. Removing such overhangs with a scalpel has already been described as a substance preserving or selective finishing technique. Clinically, restoration margins may appear as a white line after scalpel finishing, and it is unclear whether this line represents a marginal gap and/or whether scalpel finishing promotes marginal gap formation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of scalpel finishing of deep Class II composite restorations on marginal gap formation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Standardized mesioocclusal-distal (MOD) cavities were prepared and restored in 60 human molars randomly divided into six finishing protocol groups: G1, scalpels (SC); G2, oscillating files (OF); G3, finishing strips (FS); G4, scalpels and finishing strips (SC+FS); G5, scalpels and polishing discs (SC+PD); G6, polishing discs alone (PD, controls). The groups were additionally assigned to finishing and polishing in a phantom head (groups 1-4) or hand-held setting (groups 5-6) to simulate clinical and in-vitro research conditions, respectively. After restoration, artificial aging was performed by thermocycling (5-55°C, 2500 cycles) and mechanical loading (50 newtons (N) with 500,000 cycles) prior to scanning electron microscopy analysis of proximal restoration margin quality on the mesial and distal surfaces (n=120) of each tooth. Outcomes (perfect margin, marginal gap, overhang, marginal fracture) were statistically analyzed by t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, single-factor analysis of variance, post-hoc t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn-Bonferroni correction for multiple group comparisons. Cohen's effect size d(Cohen) was calculated to show the strength of the relationship between variables.

RESULTS

Overall, marginal quality was significantly better in the hand-held setting (SC+PD and PD) than the phantom head setting (SC, OF, FS, SC+FS). The best marginal quality was achieved with oscillating files in the phantom head setting and with scalpels plus polishing discs in the hand-held setting. Marginal gaps occurred significantly more often with scalpels, but the proportion of gaps was very low and clinically insignificant. Finishing strips were the least effective instruments for removing overhangs but performed better in combination with scalpels.

CONCLUSIONS

Scalpel finishing can effectively and gently remove overhangs from enamel. However, blades should be used with caution as they can cut the dentin and cementum. Scalpel finishing does not lead to a clinically relevant increase in marginal gaps, but should be followed by polishing, whenever possible, to eliminate any marginal fractures that might be present.

Antimicrobial effects of mechanical debridement

Self-performed plaque removal using manual or powered toothbrushes and interdental cleaning devices is improved in subjects that have received oral hygiene instructions. Personal oral hygiene coupled with regular professional supragingival debridement may further improve the level of plaque control but still fails to achieve a completely plaque-free dentition. Both patient-performed and professional supragingival plaque removal has an effect on subgingival microbiota that is limited to the marginal 3 mm of the periodontal pocket. At sites with 4 mm or more of probing depth, only subgingival scaling leads to a significant reduction of the bacterial load. The subgingival microflora can be further reduced by pocket elimination surgery. Due to the sequence of bacterial recolonization that occurs following mechanical debridement, the level of periodontal pathogens such as B. forsythus, P. gingivalis and T. denticola may be reduced for several months. Mechanical debridement also influences the patient's immune system response, resulting in antibody titers and avidity against periodontal pathogens. As a basis for the restoration and maintenance of periodontal health, repeated subgingival debridement, as performed in supportive periodontal therapy, can reduce the number and proportions of periodontopathogenic bacteria in subgingival plaque. However, intensive subgingival scaling and root planing should be avoided in sites that probe less than 3 mm, as this is likely to traumatize the periodontium and cause attachment loss.

Effectiveness of subgingival instrumentation with power-driven instruments in the hands of experienced and inexperienced operators. A study on manikins

Power instrumentation of periodontally-diseased root surfaces is gaining in significance as an alternative to conventional curette methods. In an experimental study employing manikins with simulated bone loss, we investigated whether inexperienced and experienced operators were able to achieve greater therapeutic success with power-driven devices than with hand instruments in subgingival scaling. 10 dentists experienced in periodontal treatment and 10 inexperienced dentists instrumented 7 teeth in the upper jaw, which had been covered with artificial deposits. Hand instruments, the Perioplaner system, a sonic and an ultrasonic scaler were used. The time required for treatment was measured and the % of residual deposits was calculated by means of image-processing techniques. Weight loss was also determined for the teeth that were scaled with the hand instruments and the Perioplaner system. Experienced operators left significantly less % of residual deposits on the teeth (18+/-7.6%) than the inexperienced (27+/-8.4%), regardless of the type of instrument selected. Both experienced and inexperienced operators left the smallest amounts of residual deposits with hand instruments (13+/-9.8%/24+/-9.5%). Both treatment groups removed more hard tooth structure with hand instruments than with the Perioplaner system (53+/-48mg versus 47+/-25.9 mg). Experienced operators needed somewhat more time for debridement than unexperienced. Use of the sonic/ultrasonic device required somewhat less time than hand instrumentation. Inexperienced operators are, however, unable to improve their treatment results by using the power-driven instruments included in the study.