Cargando…
A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study
PURPOSE: The effects of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on tooth surfaces seem to differ with regard to the root surface roughness they produce. This study aimed to compare the results of scaling using magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on extracted teeth. METHODS: Forty-four huma...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Academy of Periodontology
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543941/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23346469 http://dx.doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2012.42.6.243 |
_version_ | 1782255724411224064 |
---|---|
author | Yousefimanesh, Hojatollah Robati, Maryam Kadkhodazadeh, Mahdi Molla, Reza |
author_facet | Yousefimanesh, Hojatollah Robati, Maryam Kadkhodazadeh, Mahdi Molla, Reza |
author_sort | Yousefimanesh, Hojatollah |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The effects of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on tooth surfaces seem to differ with regard to the root surface roughness they produce. This study aimed to compare the results of scaling using magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on extracted teeth. METHODS: Forty-four human extracted teeth were assigned to four study groups (n=11). In two groups (C100 and C200), the teeth were scaled using a magnetostrictive device and two different lateral forces: 100 g and 200 g, respectively. In the other two groups (P100 and P200), the teeth were scaled with a piezoelectric device with 100 g and 200 g of lateral force, respectively. he teeth were scaled and the data on the duration of scaling and the amount of surface were collected and analyzed using the t-test. RESULTS: The mean time needed for instrumentation for the piezoelectric and magnetostrictive devices was 50:54 and 41:10, respectively, but their difference was not statistically significant (P=0.171). For root surface roughness, we only found a statistically significantly poorer result for the C200 group in comparison to the P200 group (P=0.033). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that applying a piezoelectric scaler with 200 g of lateral force leaves smoother surfaces than a magnetostrictive device with the same lateral force. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3543941 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Korean Academy of Periodontology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35439412013-01-23 A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study Yousefimanesh, Hojatollah Robati, Maryam Kadkhodazadeh, Mahdi Molla, Reza J Periodontal Implant Sci Research Article PURPOSE: The effects of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on tooth surfaces seem to differ with regard to the root surface roughness they produce. This study aimed to compare the results of scaling using magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on extracted teeth. METHODS: Forty-four human extracted teeth were assigned to four study groups (n=11). In two groups (C100 and C200), the teeth were scaled using a magnetostrictive device and two different lateral forces: 100 g and 200 g, respectively. In the other two groups (P100 and P200), the teeth were scaled with a piezoelectric device with 100 g and 200 g of lateral force, respectively. he teeth were scaled and the data on the duration of scaling and the amount of surface were collected and analyzed using the t-test. RESULTS: The mean time needed for instrumentation for the piezoelectric and magnetostrictive devices was 50:54 and 41:10, respectively, but their difference was not statistically significant (P=0.171). For root surface roughness, we only found a statistically significantly poorer result for the C200 group in comparison to the P200 group (P=0.033). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that applying a piezoelectric scaler with 200 g of lateral force leaves smoother surfaces than a magnetostrictive device with the same lateral force. Korean Academy of Periodontology 2012-12 2012-12-31 /pmc/articles/PMC3543941/ /pubmed/23346469 http://dx.doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2012.42.6.243 Text en Copyright © 2012 Korean Academy of Periodontology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). |
spellingShingle | Research Article Yousefimanesh, Hojatollah Robati, Maryam Kadkhodazadeh, Mahdi Molla, Reza A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study |
title | A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study |
title_full | A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study |
title_fullStr | A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study |
title_short | A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study |
title_sort | comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543941/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23346469 http://dx.doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2012.42.6.243 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yousefimaneshhojatollah acomparisonofmagnetostrictiveandpiezoelectricultrasonicscalingdevicesaninvitrostudy AT robatimaryam acomparisonofmagnetostrictiveandpiezoelectricultrasonicscalingdevicesaninvitrostudy AT kadkhodazadehmahdi acomparisonofmagnetostrictiveandpiezoelectricultrasonicscalingdevicesaninvitrostudy AT mollareza acomparisonofmagnetostrictiveandpiezoelectricultrasonicscalingdevicesaninvitrostudy AT yousefimaneshhojatollah comparisonofmagnetostrictiveandpiezoelectricultrasonicscalingdevicesaninvitrostudy AT robatimaryam comparisonofmagnetostrictiveandpiezoelectricultrasonicscalingdevicesaninvitrostudy AT kadkhodazadehmahdi comparisonofmagnetostrictiveandpiezoelectricultrasonicscalingdevicesaninvitrostudy AT mollareza comparisonofmagnetostrictiveandpiezoelectricultrasonicscalingdevicesaninvitrostudy |