Department of Periodontology and Implantology, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Campus Umuarama, Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Associate Professor. Department of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil.
Braz Dent J. 2024 Oct 28;35:e245763. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440202405763. eCollection 2024.
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different scaling protocols on the morphology and roughness of the root dentin substrate exposure to ionizing radiation. One hundred and thirty extracted bovine incisors were randomly divided into two groups (n=65): non-irradiated (NIR) and irradiated (IR). Each group was initially subdivided into three subgroups according to the type of non-surgical periodontal protocol: NIT: no instrumentation; HS: hand scaling with 15 apical-coronal instrument movements; US: ultrasonic scaling with 15 apical-coronal cycles. Subsequently, all samples were subjected to the prophylaxis protocol, being subdivided into the following groups: NIT/PP: prophylaxis with a fine prophylactic paste using a rubber cup for 15 seconds; HS/PP: Hand scaling followed by the prophylaxis protocol; US/PP: Ultrasonic scaling followed by the prophylaxis protocol. The roughness of the root dentin surface was measured with a profilometer (Ra/Rz - μm), and the morphology of the dentin surfaces was analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The analyses were conducted before and after the prophylaxis protocol. In the absence of prophylaxis, the roughest surfaces were observed after ultrasonic instrumentation followed by hand instrumentation for both IR and NIR groups. No difference in Ra and RZ values between HS/PP and US/PP was observed for both substrates. For the IR group, the prophylaxis resulted in similar Ra and RZ values for both instrumentation groups in comparison to no instrumentation. Ordinal logistic regression showed that both HS and US resulted in higher scores than NIT, irrespective of IR presence. In conclusion, the IR showed a rougher root surface for both HS and US in comparison to NIR. However, the prophylaxis procedure significantly reduced the roughness of root surfaces after both instrumentation procedures.
本研究旨在评估不同的刮治方案对暴露于电离辐射的牙本质基质形态和粗糙度的影响。将 130 颗离体牛切牙随机分为两组（n=65）：未照射（NIR）和照射（IR）。每组根据非手术牙周方案的类型进一步分为三组：NIT：不使用器械；HS：手动刮治，使用 15 次器械前牙至后牙的运动；US：超声刮治，使用 15 次器械前牙至后牙的循环。随后，所有样本均进行了预防程序，分为以下几组：NIT/PP：使用细牙菌斑去除剂和橡胶杯进行 15 秒洁治；HS/PP：手动刮治后进行预防程序；US/PP：超声刮治后进行预防程序。使用轮廓仪（Ra/Rz-μm）测量牙本质表面粗糙度，使用扫描电子显微镜（SEM）分析牙本质表面形态。在预防程序前后进行分析。在没有预防程序的情况下，IR 和 NIR 组的超声器械处理后紧接着是手动器械处理，表面最粗糙。对于两种基底，HS/PP 和 US/PP 之间的 Ra 和 RZ 值没有差异。对于 IR 组，与不使用器械相比，两种器械处理组的预防程序导致 Ra 和 RZ 值相似。有序逻辑回归显示，HS 和 US 均产生高于 NIT 的评分，与 IR 的存在无关。总之，与 NIR 相比，IR 使 HS 和 US 处理后的根面更粗糙。然而，预防程序显著降低了两种器械处理后的根面粗糙度。
