Logo-japid
J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent. 2022;14(2): 84-88.
doi: 10.34172/japid.2022.022
PMID: 36714085
PMCID: PMC9871177
  Abstract View: 560
  PDF Download: 380
  Full Text View: 154

Research Article

Evaluation of root surface roughness produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scalers: An in vivo study

Farzane Vaziri 1 ORCID logo, Fahimeh Rashidi Maybodi 1 ORCID logo, Mohammad Arab Farashahi 1* ORCID logo

1 Periodontology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Corresponding author: Mohammad Arab Farashahi, E-mail: , Email: sma.farashahi@yahoo.com

Abstract

Background. The aim of periodontal treatment is to remove bacterial plaque and dental calculus by hand and power-driven instruments. However, the comparison of the effectiveness of these instruments has always been controversial. Therefore, this in vivo study investigated and compared the effects of hand and ultrasonic piezoelectric instruments on the roughness of dental surfaces under an atomic force microscope (AFM).

Methods. In this study, 35 periodontally hopeless teeth were selected and randomly divided into four groups (n=7). The control group consisted of teeth that had to be extracted for orthodontic or prosthetic treatment (n=7). In group one, scaling and root planing were performed using hand instruments. In other groups, scaling and root planing were performed using piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments with low to high power, respectively. Then the scaled teeth were extracted for analysis under an atomic force microscope.

Results. This study showed that root roughness significantly differed between different experimental groups (P<0.027). The root roughness (Rq) in the SRP2 group significantly differed from the control group (P<0.05), while no significant differences were observed between the other groups. Furthermore, the least roughness was observed in the SRP3 group, with the highest roughness in the SRP2 group.

Conclusion. Within the limitation of this study, there were no significant differences in surface roughness between different powers of the ultrasonic device.

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 561

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 380

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


Full Text View: 154

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 06 Apr 2022
Revision: 22 Oct 2022
Accepted: 22 Oct 2022
ePublished: 06 Nov 2022
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)