Yukna R A, Scott J B, Aichelmann-Reidy M E, LeBlanc D M, Mayer E T
Department of Periodontics, Louisiana State University School of Dentistry, New Orleans 70119-2799, USA.
J Periodontol. 1997 May;68(5):436-42. doi: 10.1902/jop.1997.68.5.436.
Several studies have found incomplete calculus removal during periodontal treatment with traditional hand curets, sonic, and ultrasonic instruments. This study evaluated the speed and effectiveness of subgingival calculus removal with new diamond-coated ultrasonic tips on single-rooted teeth. Single session subgingival scaling and root planing was performed on 80 teeth with 5 to 12 mm probing depths in 15 patients. Each patient provided groups of 4 teeth that were randomly treated with either hand curets (HAND); standard smooth ultrasonic tip (US); or fine grit (FINDIAM) or medium grit (MEDDIAM) diamond-coated ultrasonic tips. The time taken to reach the therapeutic endpoint of a clean, smooth root surface in a defined region on each tooth with each instrument by the 3 therapists with differing experience levels was recorded. The teeth were then atraumatically extracted, stored in a surfactant, photographed at 10X, and the percent of calculus present in the area of the pocket or on a comparable control surface calculated by histometric point counting. ANOVA and paired t tests showed that mean percent remaining calculus on treated versus control surfaces was HAND 4.6 +/- 5.3 versus 57.5 +/- 28.2, US 4.7 +/- 6.4 versus 54.4 +/- 25.9, FINDIAM 4.3 +/- 5.2 versus 37.5 +/- 22.1, and MEDDIAM 3.4 +/- 4.2 versus 50.7 +/- 20.1, respectively (all P < 0.01). The mean time in seconds to reach the clinical endpoint ranged from HAND 289 +/- 193, US 194 +/- 67, FINDIAM 167 +/- 71, to MEDDIAM 147 +/- 92. All powered instruments were significantly faster than HAND (P < 0.05), but did not differ from each other. On a 0 = "smooth" to 3 = "rough" scale, most often HAND resulted in "smooth" surfaces (10/20), the powered tips of all types "slight" surface roughness (10/20 each), and US the most "moderate" roughness (7/20). There were no differences in percent calculus remaining, surface roughness, or time spent among the 3 treating clinicians despite their varying experience levels. The results of this study showed that percent calculus remaining was <5% with all the instruments given time ad libitum on a given root surface. Root roughness was generally slightly greater with all 3 powered tips. All of the powered instruments took significantly less time than the HAND. Both DIAM tips took less time than US. Diamond-coated ultrasonic tips appeared to be much more efficient than HAND or US in removing calculus in moderate-deep probing depths on single-rooted teeth in vivo.
多项研究发现,在使用传统手动刮治器、声波器械和超声波器械进行牙周治疗时,牙结石清除不完全。本研究评估了新型金刚石涂层超声工作尖清除单根牙龈下牙结石的速度和效果。对15例患者80颗探诊深度为5至12毫米的牙齿进行单次龈下刮治和根面平整。每位患者提供4颗牙,随机分为4组,分别使用手动刮治器(HAND)、标准光滑超声工作尖(US)、细粒度(FINDIAM)或中粒度(MEDDIAM)金刚石涂层超声工作尖进行治疗。记录3名经验水平不同的治疗师使用每种器械在每颗牙齿的指定区域达到清洁、光滑根面治疗终点所需的时间。然后将牙齿无创伤性拔除,保存在表面活性剂中,在10倍放大倍数下拍照,并通过组织计量点计数计算袋内区域或可比对照表面存在的牙结石百分比。方差分析和配对t检验显示,治疗表面与对照表面残留牙结石的平均百分比分别为:HAND组4.6±5.3%对57.5±28.2%,US组4.7±6.4%对54.4±25.9%,FINDIAM组4.3±5.2%对37.5±22.1%,MEDDIAM组3.4±4.2%对50.7±20.1%(均P<0.01)。达到临床终点的平均时间(秒)范围为:HAND组289±193秒,US组194±67秒,FINDIAM组167±71秒,MEDDIAM组147±92秒。所有动力器械均显著快于HAND组(P<0.05),但彼此之间无差异。在0=“光滑”至3= “粗糙”的评分标准下,多数情况下HAND组产生“光滑”表面(10/20),所有类型的动力工作尖产生“轻微”表面粗糙度(各10/20),US组产生的表面粗糙度最“中等”(7/20)。尽管3名治疗临床医生经验水平不同,但残留牙结石百分比、表面粗糙度或治疗时间并无差异。本研究结果表明,在给定根面上给予足够时间,所有器械残留的牙结石百分比均<5%。所有3种动力工作尖导致的根面粗糙度一般略大。所有动力器械所需时间均显著少于HAND组。两种金刚石涂层工作尖所需时间均少于US组。在体内对单根牙中度至深度探诊深度的牙结石清除方面,金刚石涂层超声工作尖似乎比HAND或US更高效。