Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Clinical comparison of the effectiveness of novel sonic instruments and curettes for periodontal debridement after 2 months.


Beuchat, M; Busslinger, A; Schmidlin, P R; Michel, B; Lehmann, B; Lutz, F (2001). Clinical comparison of the effectiveness of novel sonic instruments and curettes for periodontal debridement after 2 months. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 28(12):1145-1150.

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the effectiveness of scaling and root planing of new oscillating instruments (Periosonic) using a sonic handpiece compared to hand curettes with a split mouth design after 2 months. METHODS: 11 patients with adult periodontitis participated in this study. Plaque index (PII) (O'Leary), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD), recession (REC) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded at baseline and 2 months after treatment. After oral hygiene instruction, 2 randomly assigned quadrants per patient were scaled and root planed with curettes (control side) and the remaining 2 quadrants with the Periosonic instruments 1 and 2 (test side). The student t-test for paired data was used to test the significance of difference between test and control sides. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference (p>0.05) between the 2 sides for the improvement of the clinical parameters excepted for the group with initial PPD of 4-6 mm (test: 1.3+/-0.4 mm PPD reduction, control: 1.6+/-0.4 mm). For PPD > or =7 mm, the test side had better clinical improvement in attachment levels (2.2+/-0.9 mm), less recession (-0.4+/-0.5 mm) with lower PPD reduction (2.4+/-0.6 mm) than the control side (AL: 1.6+/-1.8 mm; REC: -1.3+/-0.7 mm, PPD reduction: 3.0+/-1.4 mm). CONCLUSION: This clinical study demonstrated that Periosonic(R) instruments are clinically at least as effective as curettes in PPD reduction when initial PPD is < or =6 mm and show better clinical attachment level improvement with less recession for initial PPD of > or =7 mm.

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the effectiveness of scaling and root planing of new oscillating instruments (Periosonic) using a sonic handpiece compared to hand curettes with a split mouth design after 2 months. METHODS: 11 patients with adult periodontitis participated in this study. Plaque index (PII) (O'Leary), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD), recession (REC) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded at baseline and 2 months after treatment. After oral hygiene instruction, 2 randomly assigned quadrants per patient were scaled and root planed with curettes (control side) and the remaining 2 quadrants with the Periosonic instruments 1 and 2 (test side). The student t-test for paired data was used to test the significance of difference between test and control sides. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference (p>0.05) between the 2 sides for the improvement of the clinical parameters excepted for the group with initial PPD of 4-6 mm (test: 1.3+/-0.4 mm PPD reduction, control: 1.6+/-0.4 mm). For PPD > or =7 mm, the test side had better clinical improvement in attachment levels (2.2+/-0.9 mm), less recession (-0.4+/-0.5 mm) with lower PPD reduction (2.4+/-0.6 mm) than the control side (AL: 1.6+/-1.8 mm; REC: -1.3+/-0.7 mm, PPD reduction: 3.0+/-1.4 mm). CONCLUSION: This clinical study demonstrated that Periosonic(R) instruments are clinically at least as effective as curettes in PPD reduction when initial PPD is < or =6 mm and show better clinical attachment level improvement with less recession for initial PPD of > or =7 mm.

Statistics

Citations

5 citations in Web of Science®
9 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:1 December 2001
Deposited On:11 Feb 2008 12:24
Last Modified:06 Dec 2017 13:24
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN:0303-6979
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051X.2001.281209.x
PubMed ID:11737512

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher