Cargando…

A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of root‐shape inserts mounted on a reciprocating handpiece during the procedure of root surface debridement (RSD) on extracted teeth. Three different approaches were compared: ultrasonic scaling, employment of root‐shape inserts mounted on a r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dassatti, Leonardo, Manicone, Paolo Francesco, Lauricella, Selenia, Pastorino, Roberta, Filetici, Pierfrancesco, Nicoletti, Fabrizio, D'Addona, Antonio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7453770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32573120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.299
_version_ 1783575416642994176
author Dassatti, Leonardo
Manicone, Paolo Francesco
Lauricella, Selenia
Pastorino, Roberta
Filetici, Pierfrancesco
Nicoletti, Fabrizio
D'Addona, Antonio
author_facet Dassatti, Leonardo
Manicone, Paolo Francesco
Lauricella, Selenia
Pastorino, Roberta
Filetici, Pierfrancesco
Nicoletti, Fabrizio
D'Addona, Antonio
author_sort Dassatti, Leonardo
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of root‐shape inserts mounted on a reciprocating handpiece during the procedure of root surface debridement (RSD) on extracted teeth. Three different approaches were compared: ultrasonic scaling, employment of root‐shape inserts mounted on a reciprocating handpiece, and a combination of both. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 51 extracted teeth were divided into three groups. The first group was instrumented with an ultrasonic scaler, the second group with flexible root‐shape inserts mounted on a reciprocating handpiece (grain size 40, 15, and 4 μm), whereas the final group underwent a combination of both approaches. The time required for the instrumentation was taken. The specimens were subjected to optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and the photographs were evaluated by three examiners who were blinded to the study. The parameters included were: SEM roughness index (SRI) for the roughness calculation, remaining calculus Index (RCI) to evaluate the residual calculus deposits, and loss of tooth substance index (LTSI) to evaluate the loss of tooth substance caused by instrumentation. RESULT: The results revealed that the time taken for the instrumentation was on average longer when the root‐shape inserts were employed alone, meanwhile the combined approach did not show significant difference in comparison with the ultrasonic scaling. The lower average RCI was obtained with a combined approach. The use of root‐shape inserts seems to cause a moderate increase in LTSI, especially in a combined approach, whereas it resulted in a better average SRI. CONCLUSION: The employment of root‐shape inserts seems to be effective in the RSD for its ability to obtain a smooth and calculus‐free instrumented surface, especially when used in combination with an ultrasonic scaler, and their use can so represent a valid approach to be tested in further in vivo studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7453770
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74537702020-09-02 A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement Dassatti, Leonardo Manicone, Paolo Francesco Lauricella, Selenia Pastorino, Roberta Filetici, Pierfrancesco Nicoletti, Fabrizio D'Addona, Antonio Clin Exp Dent Res Original Articles OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of root‐shape inserts mounted on a reciprocating handpiece during the procedure of root surface debridement (RSD) on extracted teeth. Three different approaches were compared: ultrasonic scaling, employment of root‐shape inserts mounted on a reciprocating handpiece, and a combination of both. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 51 extracted teeth were divided into three groups. The first group was instrumented with an ultrasonic scaler, the second group with flexible root‐shape inserts mounted on a reciprocating handpiece (grain size 40, 15, and 4 μm), whereas the final group underwent a combination of both approaches. The time required for the instrumentation was taken. The specimens were subjected to optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and the photographs were evaluated by three examiners who were blinded to the study. The parameters included were: SEM roughness index (SRI) for the roughness calculation, remaining calculus Index (RCI) to evaluate the residual calculus deposits, and loss of tooth substance index (LTSI) to evaluate the loss of tooth substance caused by instrumentation. RESULT: The results revealed that the time taken for the instrumentation was on average longer when the root‐shape inserts were employed alone, meanwhile the combined approach did not show significant difference in comparison with the ultrasonic scaling. The lower average RCI was obtained with a combined approach. The use of root‐shape inserts seems to cause a moderate increase in LTSI, especially in a combined approach, whereas it resulted in a better average SRI. CONCLUSION: The employment of root‐shape inserts seems to be effective in the RSD for its ability to obtain a smooth and calculus‐free instrumented surface, especially when used in combination with an ultrasonic scaler, and their use can so represent a valid approach to be tested in further in vivo studies. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7453770/ /pubmed/32573120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.299 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Dassatti, Leonardo
Manicone, Paolo Francesco
Lauricella, Selenia
Pastorino, Roberta
Filetici, Pierfrancesco
Nicoletti, Fabrizio
D'Addona, Antonio
A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement
title A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement
title_full A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement
title_fullStr A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement
title_full_unstemmed A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement
title_short A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement
title_sort comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7453770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32573120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.299
work_keys_str_mv AT dassattileonardo acomparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT maniconepaolofrancesco acomparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT lauricellaselenia acomparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT pastorinoroberta acomparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT fileticipierfrancesco acomparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT nicolettifabrizio acomparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT daddonaantonio acomparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT dassattileonardo comparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT maniconepaolofrancesco comparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT lauricellaselenia comparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT pastorinoroberta comparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT fileticipierfrancesco comparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT nicolettifabrizio comparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement
AT daddonaantonio comparativescanningelectronmicroscopystudybetweentheeffectofanultrasonicscalerreciprocatinghandpieceandcombinedapproachontherootsurfacetopographyinsubgingivaldebridement