Calculus Removal With Diamond-Coated Ultrasonic Inserts In Vitro

Calculus Removal and Root Surface Roughness When Using the Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSGG Laser Compared with Conventional Instrumentation Method: A Literature Review

Objective: The purpose of this literature review was to evaluate the effectiveness of using Er:YAG (erbium-doped yttrium/aluminum/garnet) laser or Er,Cr:YSGG (erbium, chromium-doped yttrium/scandium/gallium/garnet) laser on calculus removal and their effect on the topography and roughness of root surface in comparison with the conventional instruments in the nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Background data: One of the most challenging problems in treatment of periodontal disease is the elimination of plaque and calculus, leaving a clean and smooth root surface to decrease plaque and calculus retention, and for good gingival reattachment. Materials and methods: PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for available literature. The electronic search was limited to articles published in the period between January 2007 and April 2017, in the English language. Results: A total of 47 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this systematic review and screened according to the research questions. Calculus removal using the ultrasonic instrument showed remaining calculus compared with the hand instrument, whereas, on the contrary, erbium lasers revealed no remaining calculus or smaller amounts compared with the conventional instruments when used in appropriate settings. The results of this review showed that ultrasonic instrumentation produced effects on the root surface almost similar to that of hand instrumentation. Er:YAG laser and Er,Cr:YSGG laser clarify a little more surface roughness when compared with conventional instruments. Conclusions: The present systematic review indicates that a combination of scaling and root planing (SRP) using the erbium lasers as an adjunctive therapy at certain parameters can be appropriate to remove residual debris from the root surface and at the same time have little or no negative thermal effect on the root surface. The Er:YAG laser also seems to be the most suitable for nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Additional new good-designed studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of erbium lasers with SRP in nonsurgical periodontal therapy.

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.

Root surface defect produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scaler with different power settings: an in vitro study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the root surface defect produced by hand curettes and ultrasonic tips with different power settings. Forty root surfaces were divided into 4 groups according the treatment: Gracey curettes, ultrasonic scaler at 10% power, ultrasonic scaler at 50% power and ultrasonic scaler at 100% power. Each specimen was instrumented with 15 strokes and the and divided in the middle to evaluate: (1) the defect depth produced by the instrumentation and (2) contact area of the instrument tips, which was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. ANOVA and Tukey's test were used for statistical analysis (a=0.05). The results (mean ± SD) of the contact area showed significantly greater defects (p<0.05) for the hand instrumented groups (2092.9 ± 482) compared to the ultrasonic groups (606.8 ± 283.0; 858.6 ± 422.5; 1212.0 ± 366.7, respectively), independently of the power setting. The values for the defect depth on root surface showed no statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between hand instrumentation (66.1 ± 34.0) and ultrasonic scaling at 10%, 50% or 100% power settings (52.4 ± 22.1; 72.0 ± 29.9; 77.7 ± 37.7, respectively). The findings of this study demonstrate that ultrasonic instrumentation produced a similar defect depth to that of hand instrumentation, with a smaller tip contact area, independently of the power setting used for scaling.