Comparison of four methods of assessing root surface debridement.

BACKGROUND

While there is great interest in measuring the efficacy of root surface debridement, there is little consensus on how this might be best achieved. The aim of this study was therefore to compare four different methods of assessing root surface debridement in their ability to discriminate between ultrasonically instrumented root surfaces and non-instrumented control surfaces.

METHODS

Single-session subgingival root debridement was performed by an experienced operator on 30 teeth prior to their extraction. Following extraction, efficacy of root surface debridement was measured by percentage of remaining calculus, instrument efficiency, modified instrument efficiency, and percentage apical plaque border. In addition, the effect of probing depth landmark (apical plaque border versus connective tissue attachment) on outcomes was assessed.

RESULTS

The results indicated that percentage apical plaque border demonstrated highly statistically significant differences between instrumented and control surfaces (P= 0.02). No other assessment method was able to discriminate between instrumented and non-instrumented surfaces, and this may be a function of the low amount of root surface calculus in the experimental sample. In addition, choice of probing depth landmark had a notable effect on the outcomes for instrument efficiency and modified instrument efficiency. Ninety-five percent limits of agreement of interexaminer reproducibility were found to be much higher than intra-examiner measurement for all four methods of assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Percentage apical plaque border appeared to be potentially more useful than other methods for assessing the efficacy of debridement of periodontally involved root surfaces, particularly for measuring instrument penetrability.