Cargando…

Evaluation of a systematic digitized training program on the effectivity of subgingival instrumentation with curettes and sonic scalers in vitro

OBJECTIVES: Whereas the key role of subgingival instrumentation in periodontal therapy is well known, the influence of operators’ experience/training with different devices on treatment results is yet uncertain. Therefore, we assessed untrained undergraduate students, working on manikins, as to how...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Graetz, Christian, Fecke, Paula, Seidel, Miriam, Engel, Anne Sophie, Schorr, Susanne, Sentker, Johanna, Dörfer, Christof E., Sälzer, Sonja
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7785550/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32474807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03356-8
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: Whereas the key role of subgingival instrumentation in periodontal therapy is well known, the influence of operators’ experience/training with different devices on treatment results is yet uncertain. Therefore, we assessed untrained undergraduate students, working on manikins, as to how effectively they learn to use curettes (GRA) and sonic scalers (AIR); hypothesizing that AIR will result in higher relative cleaning efficacy (RCE) than GRA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Before baseline evaluation (T0), 30 operators (9 males, 21 females) received a 2-h theoretical lesson for both instruments, followed by a 12-week period with a weekly digitized training program for 45 min. During three sessions (T1–T3), the operators had to instrument six equivalent test teeth with GRA and AIR. At T0–T3, treatment time, proportion of removed simulated biofilm (RCE-b), and hard deposits (RCE-d) were measured. RESULTS: At T0, RCE-b was in mean(SD) 64.18(25.74) % for GRA, 62.25(26.69) % for AIR; (p = 0.172) and RCE-d 85.48(12.32) %/ 65.71(15.27) % (p < 0.001). At T3, operators reached highest RCE-b in both groups (GRA/AIR 71.54(23.90) %/71.75(23.05)%; p = 0.864); RCE-d GRA/AIR: 84.68(16.84) %/77.85(13.98) %; p < 0.001). Both groups achieved shorter treatment times after training. At T3, using curettes was faster (GRA/AIR 16.67(3.31) min/19.80(4.52) min; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After systematic digitized training, untrained operators were able to clean 70% of the root surfaces with curettes and sonic scalers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It can be concluded that a systematic digitized and interactive training program in manikin heads is helpful in the training of root surface debridement.