Volume 1, Issue 3 (7-2016)                   J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2016, 1(3): 38-43 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sarlati F, Simdar N, Razzaghi S, Shariatmadarahmadi R, Shabahangfar M. Comparative Evaluation of Immediate Effect of Root Instrumentation with Curettes and Mini-Insert Ultrasonic Scalers on Clinical Attachment Level. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2016; 1 (3) :38-43
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-94-en.html
Comparative Evaluation of Immediate Effect of Root Instrumentation with Curettes and Mini-Insert Ultrasonic Scalers on Clinical Attachment Level
F Sarlati 1, N Simdar2 , SH Razzaghi3 , R Shariatmadarahmadi4 , MR Shabahangfar5
1- Associate Professor, Periodontology Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran , f_sarlati@dentaliau.ac.ir
2- Assistant Professor و University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Periodontology Dept, School of Dentistry, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, IranKurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran
4- Associate Professor, Periodontology Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran
5- Associate Professor , Periodontology Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran
Abstract:   (4471 Views)

Background and Aim: Toothbrushes cannot reach all interdental areas. Interdental cleaning is an important part of oral hygiene care. The purpose of this study was to compare the supragingival plaque removal efficacy of an interdental cleaning power device (Aquajet) and dental floss.

Materials and Methods: Thirty subjects were enrolled in this single-blind, split mouth clinical trial. All the subjects received both written and verbal instructions and demonstrated proficiency prior to the study. The subjects were asked to abstain from oral hygiene methods for 48 hours prior to the study. The subjects were scored using the Proximal/Marginal Plaque Index (PMI). Then, the four oral quadrants were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: One upper and one lower quadrant: Aquajet and the other two quadrants: dental floss.  The subjects were observed to ensure that they have covered all areas and have followed the instructions. Afterwards, they were scored again using the PMI. The pre and post-cleaning plaque scores were evaluated using two-way repeated measure ANOVA.

Results: Both Aquajet and dental floss showed significant reduction of the baseline PMI in all dental areas (P<0.05), but the difference between the groups was not significant (P>0.05). Aquajet was significantly more effective than dental floss in reducing plaque on the mesial, mid-buccal and distal surfaces of upper first premolar and on the mesial and distal surfaces of upper second premolar and first molar (P<0.05).

Conclusion: The results proved that oral irrigation with Aquajet is as effective as that with dental floss in plaque removal, and that Aquajet had significantly higher plaque removal efficacy at hard-to-reach dental surfaces.

Keywords: water flosser, periodontium, plaque index
Full-Text [PDF 302 kb]   (1724 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (630 Views)  
Type of Study: Original article | Subject: Periodontology
References
1. Yukna RA, Scott JB, Aichelmann-Reidy ME, LeBlanc DM, Mayer ET. Clinical evaluation of the speed and effectiveness of subgingival calculus removal on single-rooted teeth with diamond- coated ultrasonic tips, J Peridontol 1997;68(5):436-42.
2. Drisko CH. Root instrumentation . Power-driven versus manual scalers, which one? Dent Clin North Am 1998;42(2):229-44.
3. Alves RV, Machion L, Casati MZ, Nociti FH Jr, Sallum EA, Sallum AW. Clinical attachment loss produced by curettes and ultrasonic scalers. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32(7):691-4.
4. Chapper A, Catao VV, Oppermann RV. Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation in the treatment of chronic periodontitis after supragingival plaque control. Braz Oral Res 2005;19(1):41-6.
5. 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):164-70.
6. Meulman T, Giorgetti AP, Gimenes J, Casarin RC, Peruzzo DC, Nociti FH Jr. One stage, full-mouth, ultrasonic debridement in the treatment of severe chronic periodontitis in smokers: a preliminary, blind and randomized clinical trial. J Int Acad Periodontol 2013;15:83-90.
7. Dragoo MR. A clinical evaluation of hand and ultrasonic instruments on subgingival debridement. 1. With unmodified and modified ultrasonic inserts. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1992;12(4):310-23.
8. Pons-Vicente O, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Berini-Aytés L, Gay-Escoda C. Effect on pocket depth and attachment level of manual versus ultrasonic scaling of lower second molars following lower third molar extraction: a randomized controlled trial. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107(3):e11-9.
9. Gagnot G, Mora F, Poblete MG, Vachey E, Michel JF, Cathelineau G. Comparative study of manual and ultrasonic instrumentation of cementum surfaces: influence of lateral pressure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004;24(2):137-45.
10. Badersten A, Nilvéus R, Egelberg J. Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy. I. Moderately advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 1981;8(1):57-72.
11. Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J. Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy. II. Severely advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 1984;11(1):63-76.
12. Claffey N, Loos B, Gantes B, Martin M, Heins P, Egelberg J. The relative effects of therapy and periodontal disease on loss of probing attachment after root debridement. J Clin Periodontol 1988;15(3):163-9.
13. Alves RV, Machion L, Casati MZ, Nociti Júnior FH, Sallum AW, Sallum EA. Attachment loss after scaling and root planing with different instruments. A clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31(1):12-5.
14. Casarin RC, Bittencourt S, Ribeiro Edel P, Nociti FH Jr, Sallum AW, Sallum EA, Casati MZ. Influence of immediate attachment loss during instrumentation employing thin ultrasonic tips on clinical response to nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Quintessence Int 2010;41(3):249-56.
15. Armitage GC, Svanberg GK, Löe H .Microscopic evaluation of clinical measurements of connective tissue attachment levels. J Clin Periodontol 1977;4(3):173-90.
16. Obeid PR, D'Hoore W, Bercy P. Comparative clinical responses related to the use of various periodontal instrumentation. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31(3):193-9.
17. Graetz C, Schwendicke F, Plaumann A, Rauschenbach S, Springer C, Kahl M, Sälzer S, Dörfer CE. Subgingival instrumentation to remove simulated plaque in vitro: influence of operators' experience and type of instrument. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19(5):987-95.
18. Chien HC, Ye DQ. Microscopic view of scaling influence on the root , using different power and time settings. Quintessence Int 2016; 47(7): 559-68.
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences

Designed & Developed by: Yektaweb