Comparative evaluation of the use of magnification loupes in supragingival scaling procedures

Clinical Benefits of Minimally Invasive Non-Surgical Periodontal Therapy as an Alternative of Conventional Non-Surgical Periodontal Therapy-A Pilot Study

Minimally invasive procedures were introduced in periodontics, which could enhance clinical outcomes and reduce post-operative discomfort. However, minimally invasive non-surgical periodontal therapy (MINST) as an alternative modality of conventional non-surgical root surface debridement has not been clearly evaluated by randomized controlled clinical trial. The present study aimed to investigate clinical outcomes and patients’ comfort feedback of MINST compared to conventional non-surgical periodontal therapy (CNST). Patients with moderate to severe periodontitis were included. Nine out of ten patients were recruited and completed the post-treatment re-evaluation in this study. Randomized split-mouth design, CNST and MINST on each side, was performed. Clinical parameters, including periodontal probing depth (PD), gingival recession (REC), clinical attachment level (CAL), and gingival bleeding on probing (BOP), were recorded on baseline, 1 month and 3 months post-treatment. Non-parametric statistics were used for analysis. PD, REC, CAL, and BOP were improved after treatment in both CNST and MINST groups. Comfort feedback and gingival recession showed better outcomes in the MINST group than in the CNST group. No statistical significance of parameters was found between CNST and MINST. Within the limitations, minimally invasive non-surgical periodontal therapy could be an alternative modality of conventional non-surgical periodontal therapy. Further studies are required to establish clinical protocol and evidence of MINST.

Effect of magnification factor by Galilean loupes on working posture of dental students in simulated clinical procedures: associations between direct and observational measurements

Objectives

To determine the effect of different levels of Galilean loupe magnification on working posture as measured by compliance with ergonomic posture positions, angular deviation from the neutral position of the neck, and muscle activation in the neck and upper back region during simulated clinical conditions.

Methods

An experimental laboratory study was performed in which the dependent variables were compliance with ergonomic posture requirements while performing simulated restorative procedures in Restorative Dentistry, angular deviation from the neutral position of the neck, and muscle activation in the neck and upper back. The independent variable was the level of Galilean loupe magnification, which was tested at four levels (naked eye, 2.5× magnification, 3.0× magnification, and 3.5× magnification). The cavity preparations and Class I composite resin restorations were performed on artificial first molars on a mannequin in a dental chair. The Compliance Assessment of Dental Ergonomic Posture Requirements (CADEP) was used for the postural analysis; as was an analysis of the angular deviation from the neutral position of the neck and surface electromyography. Working posture was recorded on video over the course of the procedure. Participants were filmed from three different angles. The Compliance Assessment of Dental Ergonomic Posture Requirements (CADEP) assessed compliance with ergonomic posture requirements. A locally produced posture assessment software analyzed angular deviation. Surface electromyography bilaterally assessed activation of the sternocleidomastoid, descending trapezius and ascending trapezius muscles. Two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and either Tukey's post-hoc test or the Games-Howell post-hoc test were performed (α = 0.05).

Results

During the cavity preparations and restorations, the use of Galilean loupes at all magnifications positively influenced working posture as measured by participants' compliance with ergonomic posture positions (p < 0.01) and neck angulation (p < 0.01); the use of these loupes did not affect muscle activation in the regions evaluated (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The use of Galilean loupes had a positive effect on dental students' working posture during the restoration procedures performed.

Implementing magnification during pre-clinical training: Effects on procedure quality and working posture

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of magnification on the quality of two pre-clinical procedures, class I cavity preparations and composite resin restorations, and to evaluate the working posture.

METHODS

This was an experimental laboratory study. The response variables were the quality of cavity preparations and Class I restorations as well as the working posture adopted during the execution of these procedures. The independent variables were the magnification system under four levels (unaided visualisation, the use of a simple loupe, the use of a Galilean loupe and the use of a Keplerian loupe) and the artificial teeth treated. Class I cavity preparations and restorations (N = 320) were performed using standardised procedures, and the quality achieved was evaluated using pre-established criteria. Working posture was recorded using digital video cameras and was evaluated using the Compliance Assessment of Dental Ergonomic Posture Requirements (CADEP). A two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple comparison test were performed (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The quality of cavity preparation did not differ significantly amongst the different magnification systems (P = 0.082). Galilean and Keplerian systems had a positive impact on restoration quality only for the left mandibular first molar (P = 0.04). Higher posture scores were observed when Galilean and Keplerian loupes (P = 0.01) were used, regardless of the tooth being treated.

CONCLUSION

The use of Galilean and Keplerian magnification lenses did not affect the quality of the pre-clinical procedures performed whilst improved the scores of ergonomic posture.

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.

How to train periodontal endoscopy? Results of a pilot study removing simulated hard deposits in vitro

OBJECTIVES

There is uncertainty regarding the benefits of periodontal endoscopy (PE) for subgingival instrumentation. Moreover, the influence of operators' experience and training with such a device on treatment results is unclear. Therefore, we compared in an in vitro study the use of PE for scaling and root planing (SRP) with the conventional non-surgical therapy, hypothesizing that using a PE allows to remove more simulated hard deposits than without (nPE), influenced by the operators' experience and training.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A sonic device and Gracey curettes were utilized by 11 operators (six dentists, five dental hygienists) in periodontitis manikins heads. The time required for treatment and the proportion of removed simulated hard deposits by SRP were measured.

RESULTS

Using the PE led to a significant difference in removal of simulated hard deposits (%) (mean ± SD) irrespective of operators' experience (PE 90.78 ± 12.10% (range 58.80-100%); nPE 79.98 ± 22.15% (range 38.10-100%, p < 0.001)), sub-analyses for different tooth types demonstrated a significant difference in favor of PE for front teeth (p < 0.001) and in the upper jaw independent of the tooth type (p < 0.001). Comparison of treatment times for two quadrants with and without PE showed a significantly longer treatment time with PE (∆22.27 ± 17.98 mins, p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the present pilot study, the use of PE led to more removal of simulated hard deposits but was concomitantly related to more time and financial effort. Using PE was most beneficial in the front area.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

PE may provide additional benefits for the removal of hard deposits compared to traditional SRP. The beneficial effect of PE seems not to be influenced by operators experience nor by pocket probing depth.