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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |