A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments - an in vitro profilometric and SEM study

Sumita Singh, Ashita Uppoor, Dilip Nayak

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The debridement of diseased root surface is usually performed by mechanical scaling and root planing using manual and power driven instruments. Many new designs in ultrasonic powered scaling tips have been developed. However, their effectiveness as compared to manual curettes has always been debatable. Thus, the objective of this in vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instrumentation on periodontally involved extracted teeth using profilometerand scanning electron microscope (SEM). Material and Methods: 30 periodontally involved extracted human teeth were divided into 3 groups. The teeth were instrumented with hand and ultrasonic instruments resembling clinical application. In Group A all teeth were scaled with a new universal hand curette (Hu Friedy Gracey After Five Vision curette; Hu Friedy, Chicago, USA). In Group B Cavitron™ FSI - SLI™ ultrasonic device with focused spray slimline inserts (Dentsply International Inc., York, PA, USA) were used. In Group C teeth were scaled with an EMS piezoelectric ultrasonic device with prototype modified PS inserts. The surfaces were analyzed by a Precision profilometer to measure the surface roughness (Ra value in urn) consecutively before and after the instrumentation. The samples were examined under SEM at magnifications ranging from 17x to 300x and 600x. Results: The mean Ra values (um) before and after instrumentation in all the three groups A, B and C were tabulated. After statistically analyzing the data, no significant difference was observed in the three experimental groups. Though there was a decrease in the percentage reduction of Ra values consecutively from group A to C. Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, given that the manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments produce the same surface roughness, it can be concluded that their efficacy for creating a biologically compatible surface of periodontally diseased teeth is similar.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)21-26
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Applied Oral Science
Volume20
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-01-2012

Fingerprint

Ultrasonics
Electrons
Tooth
Tooth Diseases
Hand
Root Planing
Equipment and Supplies
Debridement
In Vitro Techniques

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

@article{a31d5a4f42f542ac8940b8272a92167e,
title = "A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments - an in vitro profilometric and SEM study",
abstract = "The debridement of diseased root surface is usually performed by mechanical scaling and root planing using manual and power driven instruments. Many new designs in ultrasonic powered scaling tips have been developed. However, their effectiveness as compared to manual curettes has always been debatable. Thus, the objective of this in vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instrumentation on periodontally involved extracted teeth using profilometerand scanning electron microscope (SEM). Material and Methods: 30 periodontally involved extracted human teeth were divided into 3 groups. The teeth were instrumented with hand and ultrasonic instruments resembling clinical application. In Group A all teeth were scaled with a new universal hand curette (Hu Friedy Gracey After Five Vision curette; Hu Friedy, Chicago, USA). In Group B Cavitron™ FSI - SLI™ ultrasonic device with focused spray slimline inserts (Dentsply International Inc., York, PA, USA) were used. In Group C teeth were scaled with an EMS piezoelectric ultrasonic device with prototype modified PS inserts. The surfaces were analyzed by a Precision profilometer to measure the surface roughness (Ra value in urn) consecutively before and after the instrumentation. The samples were examined under SEM at magnifications ranging from 17x to 300x and 600x. Results: The mean Ra values (um) before and after instrumentation in all the three groups A, B and C were tabulated. After statistically analyzing the data, no significant difference was observed in the three experimental groups. Though there was a decrease in the percentage reduction of Ra values consecutively from group A to C. Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, given that the manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments produce the same surface roughness, it can be concluded that their efficacy for creating a biologically compatible surface of periodontally diseased teeth is similar.",
author = "Sumita Singh and Ashita Uppoor and Dilip Nayak",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1590/S1678-77572012000100005",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "21--26",
journal = "Journal of Applied Oral Science",
issn = "1678-7757",
publisher = "Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments - an in vitro profilometric and SEM study

AU - Singh, Sumita

AU - Uppoor, Ashita

AU - Nayak, Dilip

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - The debridement of diseased root surface is usually performed by mechanical scaling and root planing using manual and power driven instruments. Many new designs in ultrasonic powered scaling tips have been developed. However, their effectiveness as compared to manual curettes has always been debatable. Thus, the objective of this in vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instrumentation on periodontally involved extracted teeth using profilometerand scanning electron microscope (SEM). Material and Methods: 30 periodontally involved extracted human teeth were divided into 3 groups. The teeth were instrumented with hand and ultrasonic instruments resembling clinical application. In Group A all teeth were scaled with a new universal hand curette (Hu Friedy Gracey After Five Vision curette; Hu Friedy, Chicago, USA). In Group B Cavitron™ FSI - SLI™ ultrasonic device with focused spray slimline inserts (Dentsply International Inc., York, PA, USA) were used. In Group C teeth were scaled with an EMS piezoelectric ultrasonic device with prototype modified PS inserts. The surfaces were analyzed by a Precision profilometer to measure the surface roughness (Ra value in urn) consecutively before and after the instrumentation. The samples were examined under SEM at magnifications ranging from 17x to 300x and 600x. Results: The mean Ra values (um) before and after instrumentation in all the three groups A, B and C were tabulated. After statistically analyzing the data, no significant difference was observed in the three experimental groups. Though there was a decrease in the percentage reduction of Ra values consecutively from group A to C. Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, given that the manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments produce the same surface roughness, it can be concluded that their efficacy for creating a biologically compatible surface of periodontally diseased teeth is similar.

AB - The debridement of diseased root surface is usually performed by mechanical scaling and root planing using manual and power driven instruments. Many new designs in ultrasonic powered scaling tips have been developed. However, their effectiveness as compared to manual curettes has always been debatable. Thus, the objective of this in vitro study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instrumentation on periodontally involved extracted teeth using profilometerand scanning electron microscope (SEM). Material and Methods: 30 periodontally involved extracted human teeth were divided into 3 groups. The teeth were instrumented with hand and ultrasonic instruments resembling clinical application. In Group A all teeth were scaled with a new universal hand curette (Hu Friedy Gracey After Five Vision curette; Hu Friedy, Chicago, USA). In Group B Cavitron™ FSI - SLI™ ultrasonic device with focused spray slimline inserts (Dentsply International Inc., York, PA, USA) were used. In Group C teeth were scaled with an EMS piezoelectric ultrasonic device with prototype modified PS inserts. The surfaces were analyzed by a Precision profilometer to measure the surface roughness (Ra value in urn) consecutively before and after the instrumentation. The samples were examined under SEM at magnifications ranging from 17x to 300x and 600x. Results: The mean Ra values (um) before and after instrumentation in all the three groups A, B and C were tabulated. After statistically analyzing the data, no significant difference was observed in the three experimental groups. Though there was a decrease in the percentage reduction of Ra values consecutively from group A to C. Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, given that the manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments produce the same surface roughness, it can be concluded that their efficacy for creating a biologically compatible surface of periodontally diseased teeth is similar.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863379932&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863379932&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1590/S1678-77572012000100005

DO - 10.1590/S1678-77572012000100005

M3 - Article

C2 - 22437673

AN - SCOPUS:84863379932

VL - 20

SP - 21

EP - 26

JO - Journal of Applied Oral Science

JF - Journal of Applied Oral Science

SN - 1678-7757

IS - 1

ER -