Comparing the effects of manual and ultrasonic instrumentation on root surface mechanical properties

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of the current study is to analyze the surface profiles of healthy and periodontal-treated roots. In addition, manual and ultrasonic instrumentation methods have been compared in terms of surface mechanical properties of root surfaces including surface roughness, hardness, and elastic modulus. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted using extracted teeth that were randomly divided into two study groups (1 and 2). Root planing was performed using either Gracey curettes (Group 1) or ultrasonic scaler (Group 2). The noncontact profilometer was used to analyze surface roughness before and after root planing. A nanoindenter was used to analyze the surface mechanical properties. Results: The root planing treatment reduced the peak and valley heights hence decreasing the surface roughness. The average maximum height of peaks (Sp) and average maximum height of valleys (Sv) for control groups remain 83.08 ± 18.47 μm and 117.58 ± 18.02 μm. The Sp was reduced to 32.86 ± 7.99 μm and 62.11 ± 16.07 μm for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The Sv was reduced to 49.32 ± 29.51 μm for Group 1 and 80.87 ± 17.99 μm Group 2. The nanohardness and modulus of elasticity for cementum of the control group remain 0.28 ± 0.13 GPa and 5.09 ± 2.67 GPa, respectively. Conclusions: Gracey curettes and ultrasonic scalers are capable of significantly reducing the roughness following root planing. Although Gracey curettes produced smoother surfaces than ultrasonic scalers, there was no significant difference.

Key words:

Biomaterials - cementum - hardness - roughness

• REFERENCES

• 1 Pihlstrom BL, Michalowicz BS, Johnson NW. Periodontal diseases. Lancet 2005; 366: 1809-20
• 2 Deas DE, Moritz AJ, Sagun Jr. RS, Gruwell SF, Powell CA. Scaling and root planing vs. conservative surgery in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. Periodontol 2000 2016; 71: 128-39
• 3 Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Ajlal S. Applications of light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (lasers) for restorative dentistry. Med Princ Pract 2016; 25: 201-11
• 4 Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; 2005 (04) CD003875
• 5 Zafar M, Khurshid Z, Almas K. Oral tissue engineering progress and challenges. Tissue Eng Reg Med 2015; 12: 387-97
• 6 American Academy of Periodontology. Comprehensive periodontal therapy: A statement by the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol 2011; 82: 943-9
• 7 Cohen R, Mariotti A, Rethman M. Glossary of Periodontal Terms. Chicago: The American Academy of Periodontology; 2001
• 8 Greenstein G. Nonsurgical periodontal therapy in 2000: A literature review. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 1580-92
• 9 Hung HC, Douglass CW. Meta-analysis of the effect of scaling and root planing, surgical treatment and antibiotic therapies on periodontal probing depth and attachment loss. J Clin Periodontol 2002; 29: 975-86
• 10 Bonito AJ, Lux L, Lohr KN. Impact of local adjuncts to scaling and root planing in periodontal disease therapy: A systematic review. J Periodontol 2005; 76: 1227-36
• 11 Jacobson L, Blomlöf J, Lindskog S. Root surface texture after different scaling modalities. Scand J Dent Res 1994; 102: 156-60
• 12 Zafar MS, Ahmed N. Nanoindentation and surface roughness profilometry of poly methyl methacrylate denture base materials. Technol Health Care 2014; 22: 573-81
• 13 Alrahabi M, Zafar MS, Ahmed N. Effects of handpiece speed on the performance of undergraduate dental students in preclinical training. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 2015; 10: 50-5
• 14 Zafar MS, Ahmed N. The effects of acid etching time on surface mechanical properties of dental hard tissues. Dent Mater J 2015; 34: 315-20
• 15 Kishida M, Sato S, Ito K. Effects of a new ultrasonic scaler on fibroblast attachment to root surfaces: A scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Periodontal Res 2004; 39: 111-9
• 16 Folwaczny M, Merkel U, Mehl A, Hickel R. Influence of parameters on root surface roughness following treatment with a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler: An in vitro study. J Periodontol 2004; 75: 1221-6
• 17 Khurshid Z, Zafar M, Qasim S, Shahab S, Naseem M, AbuReqaiba A. Advances in nanotechnology for restorative dentistry. Materials 2015; 8: 717-31
• 18 Pereira AH, Tirapelli C, Rodolpho LA. Ultrasonic dental scaler performance assessment with an innovative cavitometer. Am J Appl Sci 2010; 7: 290
• 19 Kerry GJ. Roughness of root surfaces after use of ultrasonic instruments and hand curettes. J Periodontol 1967; 38: 340-6
• 20 Ritz L, Hefti AF, Rateitschak KH. An in vitro investigation on the loss of root substance in scaling with various instruments. J Clin Periodontol 1991; 18: 643-7
• 21 Srivicharnkul P, Kharbanda OP, Swain MV, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA. Physical properties of root cementum: Part 3. Hardness and elastic modulus after application of light and heavy forces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127: 168-76
• 22 Zafar MS, Ahmed N. Nano-mechanical evaluation of dental hard tissues using indentation technique. World Appl Sci J 2013; 28: 1393-9
• 23 Zafar MS, Ahmed N. Nanomechanical characterization of exfoliated and retained deciduous incisors. Technol Health Care 2014; 22: 785-93
• 24 Rautiola C, Craig R. The microhardness of cementum and underlying dentin of normal teeth and teeth exposed to periodontal disease. J Periodontol 1961; 32: 113-23
• 25 Ho SP, Goodis H, Balooch M, Nonomura G, Marshall SJ, Marshall G. The effect of sample preparation technique on determination of structure and nanomechanical properties of human cementum hard tissue. Biomaterials 2004; 25: 4847-57