Research Article

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

Introduction

Dental plaque is the most common type of biofilm in the body.¹ Streptococci, especially Streptococcus mutans, are the most important etiologic factor in plaque formation, caries, and periodontal diseases.² Extracellular glucans, especially insoluble glucose synthesized from sucrose via glucosyltransferase, cause the accumulation of native Streptococci on the tooth surface by binding, and together with other microorganisms in the development of extracellular polysaccharide matrix, cause the formation of dental biofilm, leading to dental plaque and halitosis.³ The formation of dental plaque will be visible after a few days of plaque accumulation if oral hygiene is neglected.⁴ These plaques can lead to periodontal disease, dental caries, and tooth loss if left untreated. Successful treatment of periodontal disease is not possible as long as plaque and contaminated cementum remain on the root surface.⁵

The main goal of treating periodontitis is to remove bacterial plaque and prevent disease progression. Mechanical removal of plaque from the root surface is necessary to establish and maintain periodontal health.^6,7 Various methods such as hand scalers, sonic and ultrasonic devices, and lasers are used for scaling and planing root surfaces to completely remove the mass microbial plaque and necrotic cement.⁸ Although the manual method, with better control of the tool and increased tactile sensation of the operator, has long been known as the standard method for scaling and planing the root surfaces, this method alone fails in some cases, resulting in periodontal disease. This method is also time-consuming and tedious and depends on individual skills.⁹

Due to the disadvantages and problems of hand instruments, methods with more efficiency and fewer disadvantages have always been considered. Therefore, this study evaluated ultrasonic devices. This method has advantages such as access to furcations and deep grooves, less fatigue for the operator, and less treatment time.^10,11 Choosing the right tools to remove toxins is crucial for patient comfort and reducing physicians’ fatigue. Although limitations and disadvantages are further reduced in newer and more advanced tools, their use may still have certain unavoidable consequences. Root surface roughness is one of the most fundamental changes after using precision instruments, especially in periodontal treatment^12,13 The cumulative adverse effects of removing the particulate matter by new tools over the years may lead to severe root damage over time and facilitate the establishment of bacteria, resulting in increased plaque formation.¹⁴Since the rough surface with surface damage caused by scaling devices has not been studied properly in vivo and considering that a smooth surface is important to prevent plaque formation, this study evaluated root surface roughness produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scalers in vivo.

Methods

The present in vivo clinical trial was performed on 35 periodontally hopeless human single-rooted incisors and premolars. All the teeth had periodontal problems, with at least 70% bone loss and Miller II mobility¹⁴in the examinations carried out before extraction. This study aimed to evaluate microtopography and root surface roughness using hand instruments such as Gracey curettes and low-, medium-, and high-power ultrasonic devices. This assessment was performed by an AFM device by measuring the Rq parameter. In this study, the teeth were divided into four groups by coin randomization for scaling. The first group underwent SRP using Gracey curettes 1.2, 3.4, and 6.5 (HuFriedy Co., Chicago, IL, USA). The second group underwent SRP using a low-power ultrasonic device (ultrasonic piezo scaler Uds-K, Woodpecker, China). The third group underwent SRP using a medium-power ultrasonic device (ultrasonic piezo scaler Uds-K, Woodpecker, China). The fourth group underwent SRP using a high-power ultrasonic device (ultrasonic piezo scaler Uds-K, Woodpecker, China). The fifth group, as a control, included teeth that had to be extracted due to orthodontic or prosthetic treatment plans and had healthy periodontium in the examinations carried out before extraction. The operator performed supra- and sub-gingival scaling in one session if local anesthesia was needed. For scaling, the instrument was inserted with an angulation close to 0º; then, lateral pressure was applied firmly. Scaling continued until a smooth surface was felt with a dental explorer (D&P Dental Instruments, Dena Pouya, Iran). After scaling, a groove was made in the CEJ area on both buccal and lingual sides with a high-speed diamond bur (No. 2) (Teb Bazar, Iran). The teeth were then extracted atraumatically using anterior forceps (D&P Dental Forceps, Dena Pouya, Iran) and premolars (D&P Dental Forceps, Dena Pouya, Iran). The forceps’ tip was placed in the upper area of ​​the gingival margin. The teeth were irrigated with water for 30 seconds to remove debris and blood and then immersed in a 10% formalin solution. The roughness of root surfaces (Rq) was measured through three-dimensional images of the samples with AFM-ARA (Atomic Force Microscope) (ARA AFM, Tapping Mode, Iran) with a resolution of 256×256 pixels and an N-type silicon probe with a resonance of 325 K and 125-µm cantilever length and 40-N/M contact force. In this method, both imaging (qualitative information) and analysis (quantitative information) were performed. Data were analyzed with SPSS 18, using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests at a significance level of 0.05. The present study has the code of ethics IR.SSU.REC.1396.2 of Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran, with the registration code 28566 in the Clinical Trials System of Iran.

Result

The mean root surface roughness (Rq) values in the control, hand curette instrument, low-power ultrasonic device, medium-power ultrasonic instrument, and high-power ultrasonic instrument groups were 105.97±22.30, 178.58±65.17, 204.44±48.13, 167.61±34.80, and 186.95±85.37, respectively (Figure 1).

Close

Figure 1. Rq index in the studied groups: Cont: control group, SRP 1: manual curette group, SRP 2: low-power ultrasonic group, SRP 3: medium-power ultrasonic group, SRP 4: high-power ultrasonic group (*P<0.05, as compared to the control).

The results of ANOVA showed a significant difference in the mean Rq index between the study groups (P<0.027). Also, post hoc Tukey tests showed that the mean root surface roughness in the piezoelectric group with low power significantly differed from the control group (P=0.019). However, this difference was not significant between the other groups. The ultrasonic groups with low, medium, and high power did not significantly differ from the manual curette group. However, in using the medium power of the ultrasonic device, they showed less roughness than the manual curette group (lowest roughness). In contrast, the highest roughness was related to the low-power ultrasonic device (Table 1).

Figure 2 shows the three-dimensional images of AFM in the control, manual curette, low-power ultrasonic, medium-power ultrasonic, and high-power ultrasonic groups. According to the AFM observations in the present study, all the methods were able to eliminate dental plaque almost completely. Despite the significant mass removal by the operator, the surface roughness of the roots was different after different interventions. The surfaces in the medium-power ultrasonic group were smoother than in the other groups and showed shallow grooves and irregularity. The roughness of root surfaces in the ultrasonic method with more or less power was more than that in the manual curette, but in the ultrasonic method, regular grooves were seen with the appearance of small islands.

Close

Figure 2. Images of AFM method; control as the control group, SPR1: hand instrument curette; SPR2: ultrasonic device with low power; SPR3: ultrasonic device with medium power; SPR3: ultrasonic device with high power.

Discussion

The present study showed that after scaling and root planing, the surface roughness (Rq) in the studied groups was significantly different between the piezoelectric group with low power compared to the control group, while the other groups were not significantly different from the control group. In general, tangible roughness was created by both hand and ultrasonic instruments. The ultrasonic groups with low, medium, and high power were not significantly different from the manual curette group. However, using an ultrasonic device with medium power resulted in less roughness than the manual curette. In this regard, the results of previous studies showed no significant differences in the tooth surface roughness after scaling between piezoelectric and manual devices in vitro.^15-17The results of these studies are consistent with the findings of the present study, but the techniques used (profilometry and SEM) and the roughness indices of root surfaces were different from the present study.

Previous studies have shown that piezoelectric instruments are more effective in reducing surface roughness and cause less damage to root surfaces than conventional ultrasonic devices and manual curettes.¹⁸ The results of studies performed using newer and thinner tips showed that piezoelectric devices can create smoother root surfaces than hand instruments.^19,20 However, in the present study, the amount of roughness seen in the piezoelectric device group with low and high power was higher than with the manual curette, with no significant differences. This finding can be attributed to factors such as vibration method in the tool, water flow, tool tip cross-section, generator force, contact force, angle and duration of contact, tip shape, scaling endpoint, tip difference, the tool, and how to move the tip of the device to cause the amount of roughness created in these two methods. These variables and the difficulty of controlling the intervening role have made it impossible to identify²¹ the method that produces the least amount of surface roughness during the scaling procedure. Some previous studies have shown that the roughness caused by an ultrasonic device is higher than a manual instrument,^22-25 consistent with the present study (low- and high-power ultrasonic groups) with the difference that the changes seen in the case groups of the present study were not significantly different.

Previous studies showed a positive correlation between root surface roughness and ultrasonic device power setting: root surface roughness increased with increasing ultrasonic device power.^23,26 However, in the present study, in general, less roughness was created with increasing power. In the medium-power ultrasonic groups, less roughness was created. Despite the use of low-, medium-, and high-power conditions in the piezoelectric device, there was no assurance that the force applied in the piezoelectric device and hand method was the same, and it seems that the force applied in piezoelectric instruments was higher than the manual method in medium power. This can be due to the operator’s tactile sense in removing roughness and the tips used. Of course, the results of different studies in this field should be compared with caution because in these studies, different methodologies and tools, such as profilometry, laser Doppler, and electron microscopy, were used, while in the present study, atomic force microscopy was used. The differences in the methods can influence the results of the studies.

Compared to hand instruments, piezoelectric devices require less pressure and manual force, which increases the sensitivity and control of the operator during the work. Therefore, the operator can be more accurate due to the micro-vibrations of the tool’s tip. This method is safe enough because piezoelectric devices do not cut soft tissues in most cases. Also, their incision process is less invasive, causing less tissue damage, and the wound healing process is better.^27,28 Due to the effects of cavitation in physiological solutions such as saliva and blood, the ultrasonic device creates a relatively blood-free area and increases the operator’s ability to observe the functional area compared to conventional manual techniques. Piezoelectric instruments, unlike conventional systems, are not heated, and the risk of necrosis after treatment is low.^29,30Finally, all therapeutic procedures performed in non-surgical periodontal treatments should ultimately lead to the creation and establishment of biocompatible root surfaces for the reattachment of gingival fibroblasts.³¹The limitations of the present study included neither evaluating multi-rooted teeth nor using other methods of root surface roughness and histologic evaluation. Further studies are recommended to evaluate root surface roughness using other methods like confocal microscopy.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, there were no statistically significant differences in surface roughness between different powers of the ultrasonic device. The piezoelectric scaler with medium power created a smoother surface than other groups.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Dental and Periodontal Research Center at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences for the financial support of this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

MA initiated the research. FV and FR confirmed the design of the study. FV performed data analysis. MA and FV wrote the manuscript. All authors approved the final submission.

Funding

This study was supported by the Vice-chancellor for Research, Faculty of Dentistry, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

Availability of data

The data used to support the findings of the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ethics approval

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran (IR.SSU.REC.1396.2). The registration code in the Clinical Trials System of Iran is 28566.

References

1. Rostami N, Shields RC, Yassin SA, Hawkins AR, Bowen L, Luo TL. A critical role for extracellular DNA in dental plaque formation. Journal of dental research 2017; 96(2):208-16. doi: 10.1177/0022034516675849 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
2. Saini S, Noorani H, Shivaprakash P. Correlation of plaque nitric oxide levels with plaque Streptococcus mutans, plaque pH and decayed, missing and filled teeth index of children of different age groups. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2016; 34(1):17. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.175505 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
3. Fischetti VA, Novick RP, Ferretti JJ, Portnoy DA, Rood JI. Gram-positive pathogens: ASM Press; 2006.
4. Nicoladis E. “Where is my brush-teeth?” Acquisition of compound nouns in a French–English bilingual child. Bilingualism: language and cognition 1999; 2(3):245-56. [ Google Scholar]
5. Zijnge V, van Leeuwen MBM, Degener JE, Abbas F, Thurnheer T, Gmür R. Oral biofilm architecture on natural teeth. PloS one 2010; 5(2):e9321. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009321 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
6. Bollen CM, Papaioanno W, Van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, Van Steenberghe D. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clinical oral implants research 1996; 7(3):201-11. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070302.x [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
7. Leonardo MR, Rossi MA, Silva LA, Ito IY, Bonifácio KC. EM evaluation of bacterial biofilm and microorganisms on the apical external root surface of human teeth. Journal of endodontics 2002; 28(12):815-8. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200212000-00006 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
8. O’Leary TJ. The impact of research on scaling and root planing. J Periodontol 1986; 57(2):69-75. doi: 10.1902/jop.1986.57.2.69 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
9. Lee FS, Van Cura JE, BeGole E. A comparison of root surface temperatures using different obturation heat sources. Journal of endodontics 1998; 24(9):617-20. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80123-4 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
10. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short-term observations. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1996; 11(2):169-78. PMID: 8666447.
11. Vastardis S, Yukna RA, Rice DA, Mercante D. Root surface removal and resultant surface texture with diamond-coated ultrasonic inserts: an in vitro and SEM study. Journal of clinical periodontology 2005; 32(5):467-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00705.x [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
12. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.0303-6979.2004.00467 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
13. Chapple IL, Walmsley AD, Saxby MS, Moscrop H. Effect of instrument power setting during ultrasonic scaling upon treatment outcome. J Periodontol 1995; 66(9):756-60. doi: 10.1902/jop.1995.66.9.756 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
14. 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. Journal of periodontal research 2007; 42(1):90-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2006.00924.x [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
15. Singh S, Uppoor A, Nayak D. A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments: an in vitro profilometric and SEM study. Journal of Applied Oral Science 2012; 20(1):21-6. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572012000100005 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
16. Casarin RCV, Ribeiro FV, Sallum AW, Sallum EA, Nociti-Jr FH, Casati MZ. Root surface defect produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scaler with different power settings: an in vitro study. Brazilian dental journal 2009; 20(1):58-63. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402009000100010 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
17. Marda P, Prakash S, Devaraj C, Vastardis S. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using manual, ultrasonic and rotary instruments: an in vitro study using scanning electron microscopy. Indian Journal of Dental Research 2012; 23(2):164. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.100420 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
18. Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Hickel R, Klaiber B. The effect of working parameters on root substance removal using a piezoelectric ultrasonic sealer in vitro. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 1998; 25(2):158-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1998.tb02422.x [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
19. Dragoo MR. A Clinical Evaluation of Hand and Ultrasonic Instruments on Subgingival Debridement. Port I. With Unmodified and Modified Ultrasonic Inserts. Int J Period Restorative Dentistry 1992; 12(4)310-23. PMID: 1428611.
20. Drisko C. Scaling and root planing without overinstrumentation: hand versus power-driven scalers. Current opinion in periodontology. 1993:78-88.
21. Lea SC, Walmsley AD. Mechano-physical and biophysical properties of power-driven scalers: driving the future of powered instrument design and evaluation. Periodontology 2000 2009; 51(1):63-78. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00300.x [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
22. Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M, Fekrazad R, Hajizadeh F. Effect of hand, ultrasonic scaler and erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er: YAG) laser on the morphology of root surfaces with periodontitis: a comparative in vitro scanning electron microscopy study. J Lasers Med Sci 2012; 3(3):122. [ Google Scholar]
23. Casarin RCV, Pinto FR, Júnior FHN, Sallum EA, Sallum AW, Casati MZ. Assessment of ultrasonic root surface scaling with different power settings. roughness evaluation. Brazilian J Oral Sci 2006; 5(17):996-1000. [ Google Scholar]
24. Lie T, Leknes K. Evaluation of the effect on root surfaces of air turbine sealers and ultrasonic instrumentation. J Periodontol 1985; 56(9):522-31. doi: 10.1902/jop [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
25. Meyer K, Lie T. Root surface roughness in response to periodontal instrumentation studied by combined use of microroughness measurements and scanning electron microscopy. Journal of clinical periodontology 1977; 4(2):77-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
26. Muhammed Bedir Mahiroglu, Erkut Kahramanoglu, Mustafa Ay, Leyla Kuru and Omer Birkan Agrali. Comparison of Root Surface Wear and Roughness Resulted from Different Ultrasonic Scalers and Polishing Devices Applied on Human Teeth: An In-Vitro Study. Healthcare (Basel) 2020; 8(1):55-67. doi: 10.3390/healthcare8010055 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
27. Aro H, Kallioniemi H, Aho A, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P. Ultrasonic device in bone cutting: A histological and scanning electron microscopical study. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1981; 52(1):5-10. doi: 10.3109/17453678108991750 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
28. Vercellotti T, Crovace A, Palermo A, Molfetta A. The piezoelectric osteotomy in orthopedics: clinical and histological evaluations (pilot study in animals). Mediterr J Surg Med 2001; 9:89-95. [ Google Scholar]
29. Horton J. The healing of surgical defects in alveolar bone produced with ultrasonic instrumentation, chisel, and rotary bur. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1976; 57(2):257. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(75)90192-9 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
30. Al-Delayme RMA. Randomized clinical study comparing Piezoelectric Surgery with conventional rotatory osteotomy in mandibular third molars surgeries. Saudi Dent J 2021; 33(1):11-21. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]
31. Hakki SS, Korkusuz P, Berk G, Dundar N, Saglam M, Bozkurt B. Comparison of Er, Cr: YSGG laser and hand instrumentation on the attachment of periodontal ligament fibroblasts to periodontally diseased root surfaces: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 2010; 81(8):1216-25. doi: 10.1902/jop.2010.090715 [Crossref] [ Google Scholar]