In Vitro Evaluation of Root Surface Roughness in The Use of an Ultrasonic Device with Different Tips Having Different Mechanism of Action: A Profilometric Study

Year 2022, Volume: 12 Issue: 2, 310 - 314, 30.06.2022

Ebru Özkan Karaca , Ogül Leman Tunar

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1010944

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was the profilometric evaluation of the changes in root surface roughness created by different types of ultrasonic tips and mechanism of action.
Methods: Thirty root dentine samples obtained from 15 maxillary premolars, extracted for orthodontic reasons, were included in the study. The sample surfaces were embedded into acrylic blocks, polished, and divided into 3 study groups as linear oscillating device (LOD) with straight tip (ST); LOD with perio-curette tip (PCT); conventional ultrasonic scaler tip (CUST). A calibrated clinician instrumented all surfaces in each group. The root surfaces were evaluated before and after instrumentations with a profilometer device.
Results: There were no statistical differences between the initial roughness values of the groups (p<0.05). Multiple comparisons of after- treatment values and differences before and after instrumentations revealed statistical significances (p=0.041; p=0.016, respectively). CUST group showed the highest surface roughness in comparison with the LOD groups. LOD with ST revealed the smoothest surface followed by LOD with PCT and CUST.
Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, it may be concluded that fine and delicate tips with linear oscillating movement may be considered as the choice of insert for subgingival instrumentation due to the gentler mechanism of action than the conventional ultrasonic scalers.

Keywords

in vitro, profilometer, surface roughness, root debridement, ultrasonic device

References

• [1] Kishida M, Sato S, Ito K. Comparison of the effects of various periodontal rotary instruments on surface characteristics of root surface. J Oral Sci 2004;46(1):1-8.
• [2] O’Leary TJ. The impact of research on scaling and root planing. J Periodontol 1986;57(2):69-75.
• [3] Lindhe J, Westfelt E, Nyman S, Socransky SS, Heijl L, Bratthall G. Healing following surgical/non-surgical treatment of periodontal disease. A clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 1982;9(2):115-128.
• [4] Chan YK, Needleman IG, Clifford LR. Comparison of four methods of assessing root surface debridement. J Periodontol 2000;71(3):385-393.
• [5] Santos FA, Pochapski MT, Leal PC, Gimenes-Sakima PP, Marcantonio E, Jr. Comparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surface in vivo. Clin Oral Investig 2008;12(2):143-150.
• [6] Dwivedi S, Verma SJ. Comparison of the effects of periodontal rotary instruments and Gracey curettes on root surface characteristics: an in vivo SEM study. Quintessence Int 2012;43(10):e135-140.
• [7] Krishna R, De Stefano JA. Ultrasonic vs. hand instrumentation in periodontal therapy: clinical outcomes. Periodontol 2000 2016;71(1):113-127.
• [8] Kawashima H, Sato S, Kishida M, Ito K. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using two piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers and a hand scaler in vivo. J Periodontal Res 2007;42(1):90-95.
• [9] Jepsen S, Ayna M, Hedderich J, Eberhard J. Significant influence of scaler tip design on root substance loss resulting from ultrasonic scaling: a laserprofilometric in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31(11):1003-1006.
• [10] Dragoo MR. A clinical evaluation of hand and ultrasonic instruments on subgingival debridement. 1. With unmodified and modified ultrasonic inserts. Int J Periodontal Res 1992;12(4):310-323.
• [11] Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Hickel R, Klaiber B. Working parameters of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler influencing root substance removal in vitro. J Periodontol. 1998;69(5):547- 553.
• [12] Marda P, Prakash S, Devaraj CG, Vastardis S. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using manual, ultrasonic and rotary instruments: an in vitro study using scanning electron microscopy. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23(2):164-170.
• [13] Silva D, Martins O, Matos S, Lopes P, Rolo T, Baptista I. Histological and profilometric evaluation of the root surface after instrumentation with a new piezoelectric device–ex vivo study. Int J Dent Hyg 2015;13(2):138-144.
• [14] Claffey N, Polyzois I, Ziaka P. An overview of nonsurgical and surgical therapy. Periodontol 2000. 2004;36(1):35-44.
• [15] Tal H, Panno JM, Vaidyanathan T. Scanning electron microscope evaluation of wear of dental curettes during standardized root planing. J Periodontol 1985;56(9):532-536.
• [16] Coldiron NB, Yukna RA, Weir J, Caudill RF. A quantitative study of cementum removal with hand curettes. J Periodontol 1990;61(5):293-299.
• [17] Guentsch A, Preshaw PM. The use of a linear oscillating device in periodontal treatment: a review. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35(6):514-24.
• [18] Braun A, Krause F, Nolden R, Frentzen M. Subjective intensity of pain during the treatment of periodontal lesions with the VectorTM-system. J Periodontal Res 2003;38(2):135-140.
• [19] Hoffman A, Marshall R, Bartold P. Use of the VectorTM scaling unit in supportive periodontal therapy: a subjective patient evaluation. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32(10):1089-1093.
• [20] Kahl M, Haase E, Kocher T, Rühling A. Clinical effects after subgingival polishing with a non-aggressive ultrasonic device in initial therapy. J Clin Periodontol 2007;34(4):318-24.
• [21] Sculean A, Schwarz F, Berakdar M, Romanos GE, Brecx M, Willershausen B, Becker J. Non-surgical periodontal treatment with a new ultrasonic device (VectorTM-ultrasonic system) or hand instruments: A prospective, controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31(6):428-433.
• [22] Hahn R. Therapy and prevention of periodontitis using the Vector- method. Das Deutsche Zahnaerzteblatt. 2000;109:642-645.
• [23] Schwarz F, Bieling K, Venghaus S, Sculean A, Jepsen S, Becker J. Influence of fluorescence-controlled Er: YAG laser radiation, the VectorTM system and hand instruments on periodontally diseased root surfaces in vivo. J Clin Periodontol 2006;33(3):200-208.
• [24] Braun A, Krause F, Frentzen M, Jepsen S. Efficiency of subgingival calculus removal with the VectorTM-system compared to ultrasonic scaling and hand instrumentation in vitro. J Periodontal Res 2005;40(1):48-52.
• [25] Kumar P, Das SJ, Sonowal ST, Chawla J. Comparison of root surface roughness produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scalers: An invitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(11):ZC56-60.
• [26] Tunar OL, Gürsoy H, Çakar G, Kuru B, Ipci SD, Yılmaz S. Evaluation of the effects of Er: YAG laser and desensitizing paste containing 8% arginine and calcium carbonate, and their combinations on human dentine tubules: a scanning electron microscopic analysis. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg 2014;32(10):540-545.
• [27] Gürsoy H, Tunar OL, Ince Kuka G, Ozkan Karaca E, Kocabaş H, Kuru BE. Profilometric Analysis of Periodontally Diseased Root Surfaces After Application of Different Instrumentation Tools: An In Vitro Study. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg 2020;38(3):181-185.
• [28] Braun A, Krause F, Hartschen V, Falk W, Jepsen S. Efficiency of the VectorTM-system compared with conventional subgingival debridement in vitro and in vivo. J Clin Periodontol 2006;33(8):568-574.
• [29] Schmidlin P, Beuchat M, Busslinger A, Lehmann B, Lutz F. Tooth substance loss resulting from mechanical, sonic and ultrasonic root instrumentation assessed by liquid scintillation. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28(11):1058-1066.
• [30] Flemming H-C, Wingender J. The biofilm matrix. Nature reviews microbiology. 2010;8(9):623-633.
• [31] Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra – and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22(1):1-14.
• [32] Jones WA, O’Leary TJ. The effectiveness of in vivo root planing in removing bacterial endotoxin from the roots of periodontally involved teeth. J Periodontol 1978;49(7):337-342.
• [33] Hughes F, Auger D, Smales F. Investigation of the distribution of cementum-associated lipopolysaccharides in periodontal disease by scanning electron microscope immunohistochemistry. J Periodontal Res 1988;23(2):100-106.
• [34] Hughes TP, Caffesse RG. Gingival changes following scaling, root planing and oral hygiene—a biometric evaluation. J Periodontol 1978;49(5):245-252.
• [35] Leknes KN, Lie T, Wikesjö UM, Bogle GC, Selvig KA. Influence of tooth instrumentation roughness on subgingival microbial colonization. J Periodontol 1994;65(4):303-308.
• [36] Busslinger A, Lampe K, Beuchat M, Lehmann B. A comparative in vitro study of a magnetostrictive and a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling instrument. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28(7):642-649.
• [37] Folwaczny M, Merkel U, Mehl A, Hickel R. Influence of parameters on root surface roughness following treatment with a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 2004;75(9):1221-1226.
• [38] Leknes KN, Lie T. Influence of polishing procedures on sonic scaling root surface roughness. J Periodontol 1991;62(11):659- 662.