Stassinakis A, Hugo B, Hotz P
Klinik für Zahnerhaltung, Präventiv- und Kinderzahnmedizin, Universität Bern.
Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 1995;105(5):623-8.
The treatment of root surfaces in periodontal lesions with mechanical instruments is becoming more and more popular as an alternative to the conventional treatment with curets. In this in-vitro study a phantom head with a simulated periodontitis was used. The aim of this investigation was to determine the percentage of the subgingival non-treated root surfaces after treatment with different instruments and by different persons. Newly developed mechanical file instruments (Rootshape) were tested. Hand curets served as control group. The treatment of the teeth was carried out by three groups, each including 4 people. Group one were dental hygienists (DH), group two dentists with (Spez) and group three dentist without (Zaz) experience in the therapy of periodontal diseases. They were asked to perform a scaling and root planing on six teeth (16, 21, 24, 36, 41, 44) both with curets and Rootshape files. The size of the non-treated areas was subsequently determined planimetrically and expressed as percentage of the entire subgingival root surface. Independent of the group the percentage after file treatment was significantly lower (mean 9.85 +/- 7.78%) than that after curet-treatment (mean 14.74 +/- 10.20%). Significant differences were found when the three groups were compared after treatment either with files or curets (DH 9.61 +/- 8.02%, Spez 12.11 +/- 8.01%, Zaz 15.18 +/- 11.01%; p < 0.001). Zaz working with files achieved as good results as DH or Spez with curets (p < or = 0.05). The results indicate that the files represent an alternative to hand instruments concerning the accessibility of root surfaces.
与传统的刮治器治疗相比，使用机械器械处理牙周病变的根面作为一种替代方法正变得越来越流行。在这项体外研究中，使用了带有模拟牙周炎的模型头。本研究的目的是确定用不同器械并由不同人员处理后，龈下未处理根面的百分比。对新开发的机械锉器械（Rootshape）进行了测试。手用刮治器作为对照组。牙齿的处理由三组人员进行，每组包括4人。第一组是牙科保健员（DH），第二组是有牙周病治疗经验的牙医（Spez），第三组是没有牙周病治疗经验的牙医（Zaz）。要求他们分别使用刮治器和Rootshape锉对六颗牙齿（16、21、24、36、41、44）进行龈下刮治和根面平整。随后通过平面测量法确定未处理区域的大小，并表示为整个龈下根面的百分比。无论在哪一组，使用锉处理后的百分比（平均9.85±7.78%）均显著低于使用刮治器处理后的百分比（平均14.74±10.20%）。在用锉或刮治器处理后比较这三组时发现了显著差异（DH为9.61±8.02%，Spez为12.11±8.01%，Zaz为15.18±11.01%；p<0.001）。使用锉的Zaz取得的效果与使用刮治器的DH或Spez一样好（p≤0.05）。结果表明，就根面的可达性而言，锉是手用器械的一种替代方法。
