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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yousefimanesh, Hojatollah, Robati, Maryam, Kadkhodazadeh, Mahdi, Molla, Reza
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