Sonic Scaler Research Articles

Resolution of peri-implant mucositis at tissue- and bone-level implants: A 6-month prospective controlled clinical trial.

The objective of the study was to compare resolution of inflammation of naturally occurring peri-implant mucositis (PM) at tissue-level (TL) and bone-level (BL) implants after non-surgical mechanical debridement. Fifty-four patients with 74 Implants with PM were allocated in two groups (39 TL and 35 BL implants) and treated by means of subgingival debridement using a sonic scaler with a plastic tip without adjunctive measures. At baseline and at 1, 3, 6months, the full-mouth plaque score (FMPS), full-mouth bleeding score (FMBS), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and modified plaque index (mPlI) were recorded. The primary outcome was BOP change. After 6months, the FMPS, FMBS, PD, and number of implants with plaque decreased statistically significantly in each group (p < .05); however, no statistically significant differences were found between TL and BL implants (p > .05). After 6months, 17 (43.6%) TL and 14 (40%) BL implants showed a BOP change in (17.9%) and (11.4%), respectively. No statistical difference was recorded between groups. Within the limitations of present study, the findings showed no statistically significant differences in terms of changes in clinical parameters following non-surgical mechanical treatment of PM at TL and BL implants. A complete resolution of PM (i.e., no BOP at all implant sites) was not achieved in both groups.

Results of an experimental study of subgingival cleaning effectiveness in the furcation area

BackgroundSufficient biofilm removal in the furcation area (FA) is a major challenge in the clinical practice of supportive periodontal therapy. The aim of the present experimental study was to simulate subgingival cleaning of the FA using a powered scaler (sonic scaler (AIR), ultrasonic scaler (US)) for conventional mechanical debridement versus two air polishing with nonabrasive powder (LAPA-1: glycine powder, LAPA-2: erythritol powder) and different nozzles for supra-/subgingival cleaning for each device.MethodsSeven trained and calibrated operators with ≥ 2 years each of professional experience in treating periodontitis used the instruments to clean 3D-printed replicas of six molars with through-and-through FA (four 3-rooted and two 2-rooted teeth) in a manikin head. AIR and US were used in the control group; air polishing instruments were used in the test group. For reproducible evaluation, the test teeth were separated vertically into two or three parts, illuminated with ultraviolet light, photographed and evaluated planimetrically. Treatment time (TrT, in s) and relative cleaning efficacy (RCE, in %) were measured.ResultsOverall, 3-rooted molars (RCE in the entire FA, 23.19 ± 20.98%) could be cleaned significantly less effectively than 2-rooted molars (53.04 ± 28.45%, p < 0.001), regardless of the instrument used. In the cleaning of the entire FA, significantly higher RCE values were achieved with conventional mechanical debridement (AIR/US: 46.04 ± 25.96%/39.63 ± 22.02%; AIR vs. US: p > 0.05) than with air polishing (LAPA-1/LAPA-2: 34.06 ± 29.48%/17.09 ± 18.85%; LAPA-1 vs. LAPA-2: p < 0.001) regardless of whether a supra- or subgingival cleaning nozzle used (p < 0.001). Only LAPA-1 with a subgingival nozzle showed RCE values comparable to those of US (41.07 ± 28.95% vs. 39.63 ± 22.02%, p > 0.05). TrT was longest for US (299.40 ± 120.69 s) and shortest for LAPA-1 with a supragingival nozzle (129.67 ± 60.92 s, p < 0.001).ConclusionsAll of the examined instruments were effective to some degree in removing the simulated biofilm from the FA, but they differed substantially in cleaning efficacy. Only one air polishing device (LAPA-1) with a rigid subgingival nozzle was able to achieve RCE values similar to those of US. The current investigation confirmed that conventional mechanical debridement with powered scalers were most effective, but treatment took longer with these devices than air polishing.

Evaluation of Different Enamel Reconditioning Techniques for Effective Orthodontic Bracket Rebonding

Aim: Aims and objectives of the study were to measure shear bond strength of rebonded orthodontic brackets after using different enamel reconditioning techniques including (Diamond bur, Air abrasion with Aluminum Oxide particles, Ultra Sonic scaler, CO2 laser ).Subjects and methods : This in vitro study consists of five groups with ten samples in each group. Each sample was bonded with a metal bracket. After debonding, reconditioning of the tooth surface was performed by the finishing Diamond bur, Air abrasion, Ultra Sonic Scaler and Fractional CO2 Laser . Rebonding of the reconditioned teeth was again performed. Universal testing machine was used to evaluate the shear bond strength of the orthodontic brackets. Enamel surface topography was evaluated using scanning electron microscope. Results: The maximum average score of shear bond strength was in the LASER Group (16.4 Mega Pascal ) (MPa) followed by Ultra Sonic Scaler (16.2MPa), The Control Group (14.9MPa), Sand blasting Group (14.6MPa), at last the Diamond Burs group (11.3MPa) . There was a relationship between surface roughness and the bond strength achieved. The method which created a smoother uniform surface achieved the higher shear bond strength. Conclusions: Fractional CO2 Laser, Ultra Sonic scaler and Air abrasion can be used as preferred method of reconditioning the tooth surface after bond failure instead of diamond burs to achieve optimal bond strength of rebonded brackets.

In Vitro Efficacy of Three Different Nonsurgical Implant Surface Decontamination Methods in Three Different Defect Configurations.

Assessment of in vitro efficacy of three different nonsurgical implant surface decontamination methods in three peri-implant bone defect simulation models. A total of 180 implants were allocated to differently angulated (30, 60, and 90 degrees) peri-implant bone defect resin models, each covered by a mucosa mask. All implants were stained with indelible red color and assigned to one of the three defect models. In each simulated bone defect group, 20 implants were decontaminated for 2 minutes with a curette (CUR), sonic scaler (SOSC), or air-powder abrasion device (APA) with glycine powder. Photos were taken from both sides of each implant to measure the percentage of uncleaned implant surface area. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to assess the implant surface for morphologic damage. Among the three defect angulations, a significantly different cleaning efficacy (P < .001) for each treatment method was found (30 degrees: CUR [67.33%], SOSC [62.70%], APA [39.33%]; 60 degrees: CUR [61.59%], SOSC [54.31%], APA [23.91%]; 90 degrees: CUR [66.82%], SOSC [55.77%], APA [28.03%]). SEM did not show any considerable surface damage after APA treatment in comparison with after CUR or SOSC. Air-powder abrasion proved to be the most efficient nonsurgical treatment device for each type of defect in this in vitro model with the least noticeable surface change. No decontamination method resulted in complete cleaning of the color remnants on the implant surface.

Effects of subgingival air-polishing with trehalose powder on oral biofilm during periodontal maintenance therapy: a randomized-controlled pilot study

BackgroundThis pilot study was part of a larger study which compared the effect of subgingival air-polishing using trehalose powder with sonic scaling on clinical parameters during supportive periodontal therapy. Within this microbiological part of the investigation subgingival samples were taken from 10 participants to analyze the survival of different bacterial species after the two different treatments as a proof of principle.MethodsIn 10 participants two non-adjacent, single-root teeth requiring treatment (PD =5 mm with bleeding on probing (BOP) or > 5 mm) were selected following a split-mouth design and were treated either with a sonic scaler or air-polishing device and trehalose powder. For persistent pockets (PD =4 mm and BOP or > 4 mm), treatment was repeated after 3 months. Subgingival biofilm samples were taken at baseline (BL), subsequently and three and six months after treatment. After determination of the bacterial counts (TBL), isolated bacteria were identified by MALDI-TOF-MS. If unsuccessful, PCR and 16S rDNA sequencing were performed.ResultsIn both treatment groups, TBL decreased immediately after treatment remaining at a lower level. This confirms the findings of the larger study regarding clinical parameters showing a comparable effect on PD, BOP and CAL. Immediately after treatment, the diversity of detected species decreased significantly more than in the sonic group (p = 0.03). After 3 months, the proportion of Gram-positive anaerobic rods was lower in the air-polishing group (powder/ sonic 7%/ 25.9%, p = 0.025). Also, there was a greater reduction of Gram-negative aerobic rods for this group at this time (air-polishing/ sonic − 0.91 / -0.23 Log10 cfu/ ml, p = 0.020).ConclusionWithin the limitations of this study air-polishing and sonic treatment seem to have a comparable effect on the subgingival oral biofilm during supportive periodontal treatment.Trial registrationThe study was registered in an international trial register (German Clinical Trial Register number DRKS 00006296) on 10th of June 2015. HTML&TRIAL_ID = DRKS00006296.

Evaluation of the three methods of bacterial decontamination on implants with three different surfaces.

The main goal of the treatment of the peri-implantitis is to decontaminate the surface of the implant, thereby enabling further treatment involving, e.g., guided bone regeneration. Since new implants of the rougher surface were introduced to the common dental practice, decontamination is even more difficult. The aim of the study was to evaluate 3 different methods of decontaminating implants with 3 different surfaces. A total of 30 dental implants with 3 different surface types (machined, sandblasted, and acid-etched (SLA) and hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated) were used in the study. Each group of implants was coated with Escherichia coli biofilm and cultivated. Afterwards, the implants were transferred to the jaw model and treated with a different method: sonic scaler mechanical debridement with a Woodpecker PT5 sonic scaler (1st group), and mechanical debridement with sonic scaler and with the combination with chemical agent Perisolv® (2nd group), and with Er:YAG laser treatment (3rd group). Each implant was treated with the specific method and sent for further microbiological evaluation. The highest level of decontamination was achieved for machined-surface implants and the lowest for HA-coated implants. The method with the highest biofilm reduction was the scaler and Perisolv® group. The highest level of decontamination of HA-coated implants were achieved for Er:YAG laser irradiation method. In the following paper, the superiority of combined chemical-mechanical method of decontaminating the surface of the implant on SLA and machined-surface implants was proved. On the contrary, Er:YAG laser irradiation was reported as the best option for decontamination of the HA-coated implants. In our opinion, it is a significant finding, revealing that the method of peri-implantitis management should be considered in accordance to the type of the surface of the implant (customized to the surface of the implant).

Antimicrobial Efficacy of Different Decontamination Methods as Tested on Dental Implants with Various Types of Surfaces.

BackgroundPeri-implantitis is an inflammatory reaction affecting both hard and soft tissues surrounding dental implants. This pathological condition is caused by a polymicrobial aggressive biofilm that colonizes the implant and abutment surface at the peri-implant crevice level. The present in vitro study evaluated different methods of implant surface decontamination and assessed whether the type of the implant surface influences the results.Material/MethodsThe study was conducted in an in vitro model of peri-implantitis using 30 implants. The implants were divided into 3 equal groups based on the surface characteristics: machined-surface, sand-blasted and acid-etched, and HA-coated. Implants were coated with E. coli biofilm. After an incubation period, they were decontaminated with 4 different methods: sonic scaler application, sonic scaler application with the chemical agent Perisolv® combination, Er: YAG laser treatment, and PDT therapy with methylene blue as a photosensitizer.ResultsThe highest level of decontamination was achieved for machined-surface implants and for the combined chemical-mechanical and Er: YAG laser treatment.ConclusionsThe results of our study suggest that the method of implant decontamination should be customized to the type of implant surface.

To assess the Knowledge about the principles in using the Ultrasonic Scalers among the Undergraduates: A Questionnaire Study

To assess the Knowledge about the principles in using the ultrasonic scalers among the undergraduates: A questionnaire study. Aim-The aim of the study is to assess the knowledge among various undergraduate students in assessing the usage of ultrasonic scalers during scaling. Background-Ultrasonic scalers are being used widely now days for scaling. The correct usage of the ultra sonic scaler tip determines the efficient removal of plaque and calculus that is adherent to the tooth surface. An inefficient usage of the tip decreases the effectiveness of calculus removal; wear the teeth surface and the tip as well. Material And Methods-A total of 100 undergraduate students are included in the study. They are divided into 30 students in each group named as third year, final year and the interns. A questionnaire containing 15 questions that assess the knowledge of using ultrasonic scalers is given to each student and the statistics were calculated. Reason-The correct usage of ultrasonic scalers plays a pivotal role in removing the plaque and calculus but most of the undergraduate students are using the wrong side of the tip in removing it. This wrong way of learning enabling them to follow it in the practice and may cause destruction to the tooth and gums.

Subgingival instrumentation to remove simulated plaque in vitro: influence of operators’ experience and type of instrument

There is uncertainty regarding the benefits and risks of hand versus powered root surface instrumentation. Moreover, the influence of operators' experience on treatment results is unclear. We compared newly developed sonic, ultrasonic and hand instruments, hypothesizing that powered devices allow to remove more simulated plaque in less time than hand instruments, with significant influence of operators' experience. Sonic scaler (AIR), ultrasonic scaler (TIG) device and double Gracey curettes (GRA) were utilized by seven experienced operators (EOs) and four less experienced operators (LOs) in periodontitis manikin heads. The time required for treatment, the proportion of residual-simulated plaque and the weight loss caused by scaling as a proxy for root surface destruction were measured. Using different instruments led to significantly different proportions of removed simulated plaque regardless of operators' experience (AIR, 80.2 ± 21.3 %, TIG, 69.9 ± 22.5 %, GRA, 73.1 ± 20.0 %) (p < 0.001). Treatment times did not significantly differ between EO and LO (p > 0.05). Weight loss was increased when using hand instead of powered instruments (p < 0.001), with significantly higher weight loss induced by LO than EO (p = 0.004). Within the present study, EO did not remove more simulated plaque in less time but induced less root surface destruction. Using a sonic device was most beneficial for plaque removal. Successful root surface debridement requires both time and training regardless of the used instrument. Hand instruments might cause more damage to root surfaces, especially in the hands of less experienced operators.

Three-dimensional optical assessment of experimental iatrogenic mechanical damage to canine dental enamel caused by a sonic scaler

Removal of dental calculus deposits is one of the basic parts of professional dental cleaning. Despite the popularity of power-driven scalers, several risks are associated with their use, mechanical damage of the enamel surface being one of the most important. The present study evaluated enamel damage caused by a sonic scaler in different work patterns to quantify the damage and allow a clear comparison. Seventy-five canine teeth were carefully extracted from twenty-three dogs. The scaler was used on a clean surface with several combinations of time (five to twenty seconds) and parts of the scaler (point vs. side of the tip). Subsequently, damaged surface topography was mapped using three-dimensional optical microscopy. The results revealed a high variance in defect depth which was influenced by both factors. Statistical assessment confirmed highly significant (P &amp;lt; 0.001) or at least significant (P &amp;lt; 0.05) differences in data acquired for each group. As expected, the shallowest defects were produced by the scaler side in the shortest experimental period (five seconds). Point use proved to be quite damaging, as it resulted in approximately four times higher median values than the side in the same timeframe. Therefore, it is crucial to follow all safety precautions when handling a power-driven scaler even during routine treatments. Use of the side of the tip and constant movement on the tooth surface are essential to reduce the risk of enamel damage. &amp;nbsp;

Er:YAG laser treatment in supportive periodontal therapy

To assess clinical and microbiological outcomes of an Er:YAG laser in comparison with sonic debridement in the treatment of persistent periodontal pockets in a prospective randomized controlled multicentre study design. A total of 78 patients in supportive periodontal therapy with two residual pockets were included, 58 were available for the whole follow-up period. Root surfaces were instrumented either with a sonic scaler (Sonicflex(®) 2003 L) or with an Er:YAG laser (KEY Laser(®) 3). Clinical attachment levels (CAL), Probing depths (PD), Plaque control record (PCR) and Bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed at baseline, 13 and 26 weeks after treatment. In addition, microbiological analysis was performed employing a DNA diagnostic test kit (micro-IDent(®) Plus). Probing depths and CAL were significantly reduced in both groups over time (p < 0.05), without significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05). BOP frequency values decreased significantly within both groups (p < 0.05), with no difference between the laser and the sonic treatment (p > 0.05). PCR frequency values did not change during the observation period (p > 0.05). Microbiological analysis failed to expose any significant difference based on treatment group or period. Employing both sonic and laser treatment procedures during supportive periodontal care, similar clinical and microbiological outcomes can be expected.

Subjective intensity of pain during supportive periodontal treatment using a sonic scaler or an Er:YAG laser

To assess the subjective intensities of pain during supportive periodontal treatment using a sonic scaler or an Er:YAG laser. Forty patients with two residual periodontal pockets following conventional periodontal therapy were treated using a sonic scaler and an Er:YAG laser in a split-mouth design. A visual analogue scale was used for pain assessment directly after each treatment procedure. Additionally, pain was recorded during the treatment of 11 patients at intervals of 0.5 s using an inter-modal intensity comparison. Pain assessment during treatment showed that laser treatment (median pain score: 0.71 U, maximum: 9.94 U, minimum: 0 U) caused less pain than the sonic device (median pain score: 2.17 U, maximum: 11.26 U, minimum: 0 U) (p<0.05) with no difference in the treatment time (p>0.05). These results could be confirmed by the visual analogue scale: pain scores assessed after laser treatment (median: 1 U, maximum: 7 U, minimum: 0 U) were lower than those after sonic instrumentation (median: 3.5 U, maximum: 7.5 U, minimum: 0 U) (p<0.05). Using an Er:YAG laser during supportive periodontal treatment, painful sensations can be reduced compared with sonic scaler instrumentation.

A morphologic evaluation of defects created by a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler on casting gold alloy

Purpose: In this study we evaluated the morphologic aspects of defects created by a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler with scaler tip on casting gold alloy using scanning electron microscope (SEM) images and defect surface profiles. Methods: 54 blocks of type III casting gold alloy (Firmilay, Jellenko Inc, CA, USA) were scaled by a piezoelectric ultra- sonic scaler (P-MAX, Satelec, France) with scaler tip (No. 1 tip) on a sledge device. 2-dimensional profiles of defects on all samples were investigated by a surface profilometer (a-Step 500, KLA-Tencor, CA, USA). The selected working param- eters were lateral force (0.5 N, 1.0 N, 2.0 N), mode (P mode, S mode), and power setting (2, 4, 8). SEM images were obtained. Defect surface profiles were made on Microsoft Excel program using data obtained by a surface profilometer. Results: Among P mode samples, there were similarities on defect surface profiles and SEM images regardless of lateral force. The defects created in P mode were narrow and shallow although the depth and the width increased as power setting changed low (2) to high (8). In P mode samples, the defect depth was the greatest when lateral force of 0.5 N was applied. However all the depths were smaller than 1 m. SEM images of Lateral force of 0.5 N, S mode, power setting 2 and 4 were similar to that of P mode, but the other SEM images of S mode showed discernible changes. Defect depth of S mode samples was the greatest when lateral force of 1.0 N was applied. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concoluded that removing capability of piezoelectric scaler with scaler tip becomes maximized as power level becomes higher but the capability is restricted when excessive lateral force is applied on scaler tip. (J Korean Acad Periodontol 2009;39:385-390)

Effects of sonic scaling on the surface roughness of restorative materials

The surface roughness of dental restorative materials has a crucial effect on the health of dental and periodontal tissues as well as for the longevity of restorations. In this study we tested a glass ionomer restorative cement, two nanohybrid resin composites, a flowable resin composite and a silorane-based composite. Twenty cylindrical specimens of each material were prepared, cured, polished and instrumented with a sonic scaler (Alegra ST ZE-55 RM W&H, Austria). The mean surface roughness was recorded using a profilometer (SJ-201, Mitutoyo, Japan) at three stages: before scaling, after scaling and after re-polishing. Additional specimens were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy and back-scattered imaging. Data were examined statistically by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc tests at a level of significance of P < 0.05. The profilometric measurements and the SEM evaluation showed that, in most of the materials tested, the surface roughness was significantly increased after sonic instrumentation. After re-polishing the specimens, the roughness values were decreased. Periodontal scaling should include polishing of restorations in order to overcome alterations in surface roughness.

Periodontal healing after non‐surgical therapy with a modified sonic scaler: a controlled clinical trial

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and microbiological healing outcomes following non-surgical periodontal therapy using a modified sonic scaler system versus scaling and root planing (S/RP) with hand instruments. The study comprised 20 chronic periodontitis patients. Using a split-mouth design, both treatment modalities were randomly applied to one quadrant of the upper and lower jaws. Clinical and microbiological parameters were assessed at baseline, 4 weeks, and 6 months after treatment. Furthermore, post-operative hypersensitivity was investigated. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test (alpha = 0.05) was used for statistical analysis. With both therapy methods, periodontal conditions showed statistically significant clinical and microbiological improvements after 4 weeks and 6 months. Hypersensitive teeth were found only 4 weeks after S/RP. Besides a significantly better bleeding on probing reduction in deep S/RP sites and less time required for root instrumentation by the sonic scaler, no other clinical and microbiological parameters revealed significant differences between sites treated with the sonic scaler or S/RP. The sonic scaler system and S/RP seem to provide similarly favourable periodontal healing results, although in deep pockets S/RP appeared to achieve a better resolution of inflammation.

Comparative in vitro study of root roughness after instrumentation with ultrasonic and diamond tip sonic scaler

Objective:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the root surface roughness after instrumentation with hand curette and diamond-coated sonic and universal ultrasonic tips.Materials and Methods:Forty root surfaces of human teeth were randomly assigned to four treatment groups: control group (without instrumentation), curette instrumentation, ultrasonic instrumentation with universal tip and sonic instrumentation with diamond-coated tip. Each sample was instrumented with fifteen strokes. Before and after instrumentation, surface roughness was measured. In addition, the root surface topography was examined after treatment under the scanning electron microscope.Results:Significant statistical differences (p<0.05) were observed when comparing the control group (0.48±0.07mm) to the treated groups (hand - 1.246±0.279mm, ultrasonic - 1.468±0.177mm and sonic instrumentation - 1.576±0.20mm). The highest roughness was produced by diamond-coated sonic tip and by ultrasonic universal tip (p>0.05).Conclusion:The diamond-coated tip with sonic scaler instrumentation and ultrasonic instrumentation produce similar root surface roughness, higher than curette instrumentation.

Pain during prophylaxis treatment elicited by two power‐driven instruments

Sonic scalers have an elliptical and piezoceramic ultrasonic scalers a linear oscillation pattern. Thus, a sonic scaler "hammers" the tooth surface, irrespective of its alignment to the tooth, whereas a piezoceramic ultrasonic scaler may oscillate parallel to the tooth surface and gently remove calculus if the alignment is correct. The aim of this study was to measure pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS) during removal of supragingival calculus on mandibular incisors with a sonic or an ultrasonic scaler. Seventy-four periodontally healthy subjects with supragingival calculus on the mandibular incisors were treated with both a sonic and a piezoceramic ultrasonic scaler in a split-mouth design. The sequence of instrument application and allocation of instruments to jaw side were randomized. Patient comfort was assessed with a VAS after treatment. The VAS results did not show any difference between the two instrumentation modalities. For calculus removal during prophylaxis the type of power-driven instrument does not seem to have an impact on perceived pain. This means that the oscillation pattern does not influence the pain experience.

Substance loss caused by scaling with different sonic scaler inserts – an in vitro study

AbstractBackground, aims: Depending on the phase of periodontal treatment, power‐driven inserts with different power levels are necessary: during initial treatment and flap operations, it must be possible to remove calculus which firmly adheres to the root surface with great efficiency; in contrast, gentle root‐surface instrumentation has a high priority during maintenance treatment. Recently, modified sonic scaler inserts have been introduced: diamond‐coated inserts for open flap operations and slim probe‐shaped sonic scaler inserts for deplaqueing during maintenance.Method: We compared the substance removal by these inserts to that of a conventional insert. In a bench system which allows application force, stroke height, and width and frequency of instrumentation to be monitored and also permits assessment of the topography before and after instrumentation (yielding depth removal and removed volume), we instrumented aluminum rods in triplicate and bovine roots in a 5‐fold repetition.Results: With high application forces (1.0 N), the diamond‐coated inserts removed 30 to 50% more substance than the conventional one. Except for the slim inserts, there was a significant linear relationship between increasing force and removed volume. Probe‐shaped inserts do not remove considerable substance even with increasing pressures.Conclusions: Diamond‐coated inserts remove tooth substance very effectively and must thus be handled with care: more pressure effects more removal. Probe‐shaped inserts can be used without risk during maintenance visits.

Comparison of the effects of four different power scalers on enamel tooth surface in the dog.

The surface roughness of tooth enamel was quantitatively evaluated following scaling with four power scalers at three different tip forces. Ceramic and tooth samples were evaluated for surface roughness using surface profilometry. Applied tip forces were produced with a horizontal balanced arm holding the scaler handpiece and load weight, and were measured using a load cell. The power scalers evaluated were the ultrasonic piezoelectric, ultrasonic magnetostrictive (ferromagnetic stack), sonic, and rotosonic. For the tooth samples, at 50 grams of force, the piezoelectric, magnetostrictive, and sonic scaler roughnesses were similar and the rotosonic scaler outcome was statistically higher. Increasing the applied force significantly increased the roughness produced by the rotosonic and piezoelectric scalers. The results of this study indicate that the type of power scaler and applied tip force used determines the post-scaling surface roughness of ceramic and tooth enamel surfaces.

Instrumentation of furcation with modified sonic scaler inserts: study on manikins, part I.

The purpose of this study was to determine the suitability of different scaling instruments for the debridement of furcations. 12 upper and 12 lower replicated molars with through-and-through furcations were instrumented 3x with 5 different types of instruments: (i) hand instruments; (ii) hand instruments in conjunction with diamond burrs; (iii) a conventional ultrasonic scaler insert; (iv) a conventional sonic scaler insert; (v) a set of 2 modified diamond coated sonic scaler inserts with different angulated shafts. The plastic replicas were fixed in a manikin head without replicated soft tissues. Following debridement, weight loss and % of instrumented furcation area were assessed. In the case of lower molars, it made little difference whether they were treated with hand instruments, hand instruments combined with diamond burrs, or diamond-coated sonic scaler inserts. On upper molars, however, significantly more area was instrumented with the diamond-coated inserts than with the other instruments. Substance removal was greater with diamond-coated inserts than with the other devices. In conclusion, an effective debridement of the furcation seems possible only with an odontoplasty, in which a furcation is fitted to the instrument by means of intensive instrumentation, thus leading to substance loss. To improve results with these instruments, further research is necessary.