Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: A scanning electron microscopy study

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare root surface characteristics following root planing with various hand- and power-driven instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 single, rooted teeth were used in this study; two specimens were used as control (no instrumentation done) and the remai...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dahiya, Parveen, Kamal, Reet, Gupta, Rajan, Pandit, Nymphea
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications Pvt Ltd 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180830/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21957380
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.83065
_version_ 1782212699106574336
author Dahiya, Parveen
Kamal, Reet
Gupta, Rajan
Pandit, Nymphea
author_facet Dahiya, Parveen
Kamal, Reet
Gupta, Rajan
Pandit, Nymphea
author_sort Dahiya, Parveen
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim of this study was to compare root surface characteristics following root planing with various hand- and power-driven instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 single, rooted teeth were used in this study; two specimens were used as control (no instrumentation done) and the remaining 18 specimens were equally divided into three groups. Specimens from each group were then subjected to root planing by one of the following instruments: (1) a Gracey curette, (2) ultrasonic tip and (3) a Rotary bur. In each case, the time required for scaling and root planing and surface roughness using the Roughness and Loss of Tooth Substance Index (RLTSI) was measured. RESULT: The mean RLTSI scores for the Gracey curette, ultrasonic and rotary instrument groups were 2.5, 2.0 and 0.667, respectively. The mean scores of time spent for scaling and root planing by the Gracey curette, ultrasonic and rotary instrument groups in seconds were 42.50, 35.83 and 54.50, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All the three instruments, namely Gracey curette, ultrasonic tip and rotary bur, were effective in mechanical debridement of the root surface. The results favored the use of rotary instruments for root planing to achieve a smooth, clean root surface; however, the use of rotary instrument was more time consuming, which might limit its use in clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3180830
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Medknow Publications Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31808302011-09-28 Comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: A scanning electron microscopy study Dahiya, Parveen Kamal, Reet Gupta, Rajan Pandit, Nymphea Contemp Clin Dent Original Article AIM: The aim of this study was to compare root surface characteristics following root planing with various hand- and power-driven instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 single, rooted teeth were used in this study; two specimens were used as control (no instrumentation done) and the remaining 18 specimens were equally divided into three groups. Specimens from each group were then subjected to root planing by one of the following instruments: (1) a Gracey curette, (2) ultrasonic tip and (3) a Rotary bur. In each case, the time required for scaling and root planing and surface roughness using the Roughness and Loss of Tooth Substance Index (RLTSI) was measured. RESULT: The mean RLTSI scores for the Gracey curette, ultrasonic and rotary instrument groups were 2.5, 2.0 and 0.667, respectively. The mean scores of time spent for scaling and root planing by the Gracey curette, ultrasonic and rotary instrument groups in seconds were 42.50, 35.83 and 54.50, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All the three instruments, namely Gracey curette, ultrasonic tip and rotary bur, were effective in mechanical debridement of the root surface. The results favored the use of rotary instruments for root planing to achieve a smooth, clean root surface; however, the use of rotary instrument was more time consuming, which might limit its use in clinical practice. Medknow Publications Pvt Ltd 2011 /pmc/articles/PMC3180830/ /pubmed/21957380 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.83065 Text en © Contemporary Clinical Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Dahiya, Parveen
Kamal, Reet
Gupta, Rajan
Pandit, Nymphea
Comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: A scanning electron microscopy study
title Comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: A scanning electron microscopy study
title_full Comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: A scanning electron microscopy study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: A scanning electron microscopy study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: A scanning electron microscopy study
title_short Comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: A scanning electron microscopy study
title_sort comparative evaluation of hand and power-driven instruments on root surface characteristics: a scanning electron microscopy study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180830/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21957380
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.83065
work_keys_str_mv AT dahiyaparveen comparativeevaluationofhandandpowerdriveninstrumentsonrootsurfacecharacteristicsascanningelectronmicroscopystudy
AT kamalreet comparativeevaluationofhandandpowerdriveninstrumentsonrootsurfacecharacteristicsascanningelectronmicroscopystudy
AT guptarajan comparativeevaluationofhandandpowerdriveninstrumentsonrootsurfacecharacteristicsascanningelectronmicroscopystudy
AT panditnymphea comparativeevaluationofhandandpowerdriveninstrumentsonrootsurfacecharacteristicsascanningelectronmicroscopystudy