Clinical effects after subgingival polishing with a non-aggressive ultrasonic device in initial therapy

Debris Removal Using a Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticle-Containing Solution (Vector Polish) with Sonic or Ultrasonic Agitation

Chemomechanical preparation of the root canal system is considered to be the most important part of root canal treatment, including both mechanical removal of tissue remnants and dentine chips, and chemical elimination of biofilm and microorganisms. A number of different solutions and agitation techniques have been proposed for that purpose. It was the aim of the present study to investigate whether root canal cleanliness can be improved by using a hydroxyapatite nanoparticle-containing solution with and without sonic or ultrasonic agitation. Seventy-four single-rooted teeth were divided into four experimental groups (n = 15) and two control groups (n = 7). All teeth were split longitudinally and a groove and three holes were cut into the root canal wall and filled with dentinal debris. Final irrigation was performed using sodium hypochlorite or a hydroxyapatite nanoparticle-containing solution (Vector polish) activated with a sonically or an ultrasonically driven endodontic file. Two calibrated investigators rated the remaining debris using a four-score scale. The results were analyzed using a non-parametric test with α < 0.05. Sonic and ultrasonic irrigation with sodium hypochlorite cleaned the grooves and holes well from debris. The hydroxyapatite nanoparticles activated by a sonic file cleaned grooves and holes equally well. Ultrasonically activated nanoparticles performance was clearly inferior. The syringe control-group left large amounts of debris in grooves and holes. The use of the hydroxyapatite nanoparticles used in this study did not improve removal of debris.

Treating periodontitis-a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ultrasonic and manual subgingival scaling at different probing pocket depths

BACKGROUND

Mechanical plaque removal has been commonly accepted to be the basis for periodontal treatment. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of ultrasonic and manual subgingival scaling at different initial probing pocket depths (PPD) in periodontal treatment.

METHODS

English-language databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Medline, and ClinicalTrials.gov, by January, 2019) were searched. Weighted mean differences in primary outcomes, PPD and clinical attachment loss (CAL) reduction, were estimated by random effects model. Secondary outcomes, bleeding on probing (BOP), gingival recession (GR), and post-scaling residual dental calculus, were analyzed by comparing the results of each study. The quality of RCTs was appraised with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The GRADE approach was used to assess quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials were included out of 1434 identified. Initial PPD and follow-up periods formed subgroups. For 3-months follow-up: (1) too few shallow initial pocket studies available to draw a conclusion; (2) the heterogeneity of medium depth studies was so high that could not be merged to draw a conclusion; (3) deep pocket studies showed no statistical differences in PPD and CAL reduction between ultrasonic and manual groups. For 6-months follow-up: (1) too few shallow initial PPD studies to draw a conclusion; (2) at medium pocket depth, PPD reduction showed manual subgingival scaling better than ultrasound. No statistical differences were observed in CAL reduction between the two approaches; (3) for deep initial PPD studies, both PPD and CAL reduction showed manual subgingival scaling better. GR results indicated no statistical differences at medium and deep initial pocket studies between the two methods. BOP results showed more reduction at deep pocket depths with manual subgingival scaling. No conclusion could be drawn about residual dental calculus.

CONCLUSION

When initial PPD was 4-6 mm, PPD reduction proved manual subgingival scaling was superior, but CAL results showed no statistical differences between the two means. When initial PPD was ≥6 mm, PPD and CAL reductions suggested that manual subgingival scaling was superior.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the nonsurgical treatment of chronic periodontitis by means of scaling and root planing with or without adjuncts

BACKGROUND

Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on nonsurgical treatment of patients with chronic periodontitis by means of scaling and root planing (SRP) with or without adjuncts.

METHODS

A panel of experts convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs conducted a search of PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase for randomized controlled trials of SRP with or without the use of adjuncts with clinical attachment level (CAL) outcomes in trials at least 6 months in duration and published in English through July 2014. The authors assessed individual study bias by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and conducted meta-analyses to obtain the summary effect estimates and their precision and to assess heterogeneity. The authors used funnel plots and Egger tests to assess publication bias when there were more than 10 studies. The authors used a modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force methods to assess the overall level of certainty in the evidence.

RESULTS

The panel included 72 articles on the effectiveness of SRP with or without the following: systemic antimicrobials, a systemic host modulator (subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline), locally delivered antimicrobials (chlorhexidine chips, doxycycline hyclate gel, and minocycline microspheres), and a variety of nonsurgical lasers (photodynamic therapy with a diode laser, a diode laser, neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lasers, and erbium lasers).

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

With a moderate level of certainty, the panel found approximately a 0.5-millimeter average improvement in CAL with SRP. Combinations of SRP with assorted adjuncts resulted in a range of average CAL improvements between 0.2 and 0.6 mm over SRP alone. The panel judged the following 4 adjunctive therapies as beneficial with a moderate level of certainty: systemic subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline, systemic antimicrobials, chlorhexidine chips, and photodynamic therapy with a diode laser. There was a low level of certainty in the benefits of the other included adjunctive therapies. The panel provides clinical recommendations in the associated clinical practice guideline.

Efficacy versus health risks: An in vitro evaluation of power-driven scalers

Background:

Power-driven instrumentation of root surfaces during supportive periodontal therapy is an alternative to hand instrumentation. The purpose of this pilot in vitro study was to investigate the efficacy of sub- and supragingival plaque removal with a sonic (AIR: Synea, W and H, Bürmoos, Austria) and two ultrasonic devices (TIG: Tigon+, W and H, Bürmoos, Austria; VEC: Vector, Dürr, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) as well as the health-risk for dental professionals during treatment.

Materials and Methods:

The power-driven devices were utilized to remove plaque from model teeth in dummy heads. The percentage of residual artificial plaque after 2 min of supra- or subgingival instrumentation was calculated by means of image-processing techniques at four sites (n = 576) of each tooth. The Health-Risk-Index (HRI: spatter/residual plaque quotient) with the different power-driven devices was assessed during treatment.

Results:

The smallest amounts of residual plaque were found for the sonic device AIR (8.89% ± 10.92%) and the ultrasonic scaler TIG (8.72% ± 12.02%) (P = 0.707). Significantly more plaque was remained after the use of the ultrasonic scaler VEC (18.76% ± 18.07%) (P < 0.001). Irrespectively of the scaler, efficacy was similar sub- (10.7% ± 11.6%) and supragingivally (13.5% ± 17.2%) (P = 0.901). AIR/TIG demonstrated equal residual amounts of plaque sub- (P = 0.831) as well as supragingivally (P = 0.510). However, AIR/VEC and TIG/VEC were significantly in favor of AIR and TIG (P < 0.001). In contrast, the lowest HRI was found after using VEC (0.0043) and differed considerably for AIR (0.2812) and TIG (0.0287).

Conclusion:

Sonic devices are as effective as ultrasonic devices in the removal of biofilm but bear a higher risk to the dental professional's health concerning the formation of spatter.

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.

Histological and profilometric evaluation of the root surface after instrumentation with a new piezoelectric device - ex vivo study

OBJECTIVES

An ex vivo model was designed to profilometrically and histologically assess root changes resulting from scaling with a new ultrasonic device, designed for bone piezoelectric surgery, in comparison with curettes.

METHODS

Three groups of 10 periodontal hopeless teeth were each subjected to different root instrumentation: Gracey curettes (CUR); ultrasonic piezoelectric device, Perio 100% setting, level 8 (P100); and ultrasonic piezoelectric device Surg 50% setting, level 1 (S50). After extraction, all teeth were photographed to visually assess the presence of dental calculus. The treated root surfaces were profilometrically evaluated (Ra, Rz, Rmax). Undecalcified histological sections were prepared to assess qualitative changes in cementum thickness. Statistical analysis was carried out using one-way anova test with a significance level of 95%.

RESULTS

Both instruments proved to be effective in the complete removal of calculus. The CUR group presented the lowest Ra [2.28 μm (±0.58)] and S50 the highest [3.01 μm (±0.61)]. No statistically significant differences were detected among the three groups, for Ra, Rz and Rmax. Histologically, there was a cementum thickness reduction in all groups, being higher and more irregular in S50 group.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of this study, there were no statistically significant differences in roughness parameters analyzed between curettes and the ultrasonic piezoelectric unit. This new instrument removes a smaller amount of cementum, mainly at the Perio 100% power setting, which appears to be the least damaging. The ultrasonic device is effective in calculus removal, proving to be as effective as curettes.

The effect of the Vector scaler system on human teeth: a systematic review

AIM

To review the available literature, considering the effect of instrumentation with the Vector ultrasonic scaler on human teeth in vitro and in vivo compared to conventional ultrasonic instruments and/or hand instrumentation. The assessed effects are calculus removal, time of instrumentation, root surface aspects, cell attachment, patients' perception, bleeding upon probing, pocket depth, clinical attachment loss and microbiological effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE-PubMed and the Cochrane Central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) were searched up through January 2008 to identify appropriate studies.

RESULTS

Independent screening of the titles and abstracts of 270 MEDLINE-PubMed and 15 Cochrane papers resulted in 15 suitable publications. The studies differed in design and outcome, so this review summarizes the outcomes in a descriptive manner. Comparisons are presented against conventional ultrasonic system and scaling and root planing.

CONCLUSION

The Vector ultrasonic scaler provided comparable clinical and microbiological periodontal healing results as scaling and root planing and conventional ultrasonic system in moderately deep pockets. The Vector ultrasonic scaler may be used as a gentle root debridement device for supportive periodontal therapy, as an alternative to other conventional ultrasonic system. The operator should however consider the extra time needed for instrumentation.