Can Osteotomes Be Sharpened in the Operating Room Inexpensively and Effectively? An Experimental Study on Sandpaper Versus Arkansas Stone

Abstract

Objective: The maintenance of surgical instruments is an ongoing problem for surgeons, especially in operations such as rhinoplasty where instrument sharpness is very important. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of two inexpensive and easily accessible sharpeners that can be used in the operation room immediately before surgery. Materials and Methods: Three new Cinelli osteotomes were subjected to base sharpness measurements and then used to cut same-sized artificial bone blocks by applying hammer blows with equal force. The three osteotomes were placed into different groups as follows: the no-sharpening (NS) group, the Arkansas stone (AS) group, and the sandpaper (SP) group. Sharpness measurements were repeated in all groups after the 1st, 4th, 7th, and 10th osteotomies. Results: No significant difference was found between the initial measurements with the sharpness values measured after the 10th osteotomy in the NS and AS groups (p>0.05). The dullness in the SP group, however, increased significantly through the process. Conclusion: Using new osteotomes without resharpening them after their first use until they have become blunt may be appropriate. If sharpening is to be done, an Arkansas stone will likely provide better results than sandpaper. 

Keywords

• Osteotome
• sharpness
• sandpaper
• arkansas stone

Supporting Institution

Samsun Training and Research Hospital

Project Number

2019/20-33646832-799

References

1. 1. Wolfe SA. On the maintenance and sharpening of instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;116(5):89-91. google scholar
2. 2. Lee HM, Kang HJ, Choi JH, Chae SW, Lee SH, Hwang SJ. Rationale for osteo- tome selection in rhinoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116(12):1005-8. google scholar
3. 3. Gryskiewicz JM, Gryskiewicz KM. Nasal osteotomies: a clinical comparison of the perforating methods versus the continuous technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113(5):1445-58. google scholar
4. 4. Bloom JD, Ransom ER, Antunes MB, Becker DG. Quantifying the sharpness of osteotomes for dorsal hump reduction. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2011;13(2):103-8. google scholar
5. 5. Ransom ER, Antunes MB, Bloom JD, Becker DG. Quantifying osteotome sharpness: comparing the major manufacturers. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;146(5):707-11. google scholar
6. 6. Rossi R,Smukler H. A scanning electron microscope study comparing the effectiveness of different types of sharpening stones and curets. J Periodontol 1995; 66(11):956-61. google scholar
7. 7. Bottorf S. Sharpening Made Easy: A Primer on Sharpening Knives and Other Edged Tools. Knoxville, USA,In: Knife World Publications; 2002. 34. google scholar
8. 8. Tebbets BJ. Primary Rhinoplasty -Redefining the Logic and Techniques. Philadelphia, In: Mosby-Elsevier, c2008. p. 211-24. google scholar

9. 9. Skordaris G, Stergioudi F, Boumpakis A, Stergioudi D, Behrbohm H. A FEA-Based Methodology to Predict the Osteotome Wear Status during Nasal Bone Surgical Operations. Coatings 2019;9(12):855. google scholar
10. 10. White DE, Bartley J, Whittington C, Garcia LMG, Chand K, Turangi C. Pilot investigation into osteotome hard surface coating and cuttingedge degradation. J Orthop Surg Res 2020;15(1):253. google scholar
11. 11. Price, E. Design and validation of a device to measure the cutting edge profile of osteotomes. MEng, Institute of Technology, Sligo. 2005. google scholar
12. 12. McCarthy CT, Hussey M, Gilchrist MD. On the sharpness of straight edge blades in cutting soft solids: part I - indentation experiments. Eng Fract Mech 2007;74(14):2205-24. google scholar
13. 13. Kolle, Jefferson. “Getting an Edge with Waterstones, Oilstones, and Sandpaper”. Finewoodworking. https://web.archive.org/ web/20100621070933/http://www.finewoodworking.com/pages/ w00003.asp. Publish Date:21.06.2010. Accessed January 23, 2021. google scholar
14. 14. Acevedo RA, Cardozo AK, Sampaio JE. Scanning electron microscopic and profilometric study of different sharpening stones. Brazilian dental journal 2006;17(3):237-42. google scholar
15. 15. Wilkins EM, Boyd LD. Clinical Practice of the Dental Hygienist. In: Linda D. Boyd, RDH, RD, EdD; Jane F. Halaris, ASDH, MA; Lisa F. Mallonee, MPH, RDH, RD, LD; Charlotte J. Wyche, BSDH, MS eds. Instrument Care and Sharpening. 13th ed, Jones & Bartlett Learning 2020:1997. google scholar
16. 16. Antonini CJ, Brady JM, Levin MP, Garcia WL. Scanning electron microscope study of scalers. J Periodontol 1977;48(1):45-8. google scholar