Comparative Evaluation of Immediate Effect of Root Instrumentation With
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
F.Sarlati,et al . J Res Dentomaxillofac Sci http://www.jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir e(ISSN): 2383 -2754 Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences Comparative Evaluation of Immediate Effect of Root Instrumentation with Curettes and Mini-Insert Ultrasonic Scalers on Clinical Attachment Level Sarlati F1, Simdar N2, Razzaghi Sh3, Shariatmadarahmadi R4, Shabahangfar MR4 1Associate Professor of Periodontology, Dental Branch of Tehran, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran 2Assistant Professor of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran 3 Assistant Professor of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran 4Assistant Professor of Periodontology, Dental Branch of Tehran, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Background and Aim: Micro-ultrasonic tips are similar to hand instruments in their Article Type Orginal Article clinical application of subgingival scaling. In spite of their favorable results, exces- sive penetration of mini-insert ultrasonic scalers to the bottom of gingival pocket may Article History Received: March 2016 cause harmful effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the immediate effect of Accepted: August 2016 root instrumentation with Gracey curettes and Mini-insert ultrasonic scalers on clini- ePublished: July 2016 cal attachment level. Keywords: Methods and Materials: In this single-blind split mouth study, fifteen patients with Dental Scaling; moderate chronic periodontitis and at least five periodontal pockets around incisors Periodontal Attachment Loss; and canines with clinical attachment level ranging from 2 to 4 mm were randomly Root Planing allocated to one of the following groups: Curette scaling (CS) and Ultrasonic scal- ing (US).The Teeth were probed with a pressure sensitive probe using an occlusal stent. Immediately after scaling and root planing, the teeth were probed again. The difference in Relative Attachment Level (RAL) immediately before and after instru- mentation was considered trauma from instrumentation. The mean values recorded before and after root instrumentation were compared by student’s paired t-test and the differences in RAL measurements between the groups were compared by student’s non-paired t-test. Results: There were statistically significant differences between the two groups re- garding RAL before and after scaling and root planing (0.43±0.65 mm for US and 0.47±0.6 mm for CS) (P<0.001). However, no statistically significant difference was observed in RAL changes between the two groups (P=0.77). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it seems that use of thin tip ultrasonic scaler for periodontal nonsurgical treatment will result in immediate attachment loss at a level equal to hand instruments. Please cite this paper as: Sarlati F, Simdar N, Razzaghi Sh, Shariatmadarahmadi R, Shabahangfar MR. Comparative Evaluation of Immediate Effect of Root Instrumentation with Curettes and Mini-Insert Ultrasonic Scalers on Clinical Attachment Level. J Res Dentomaxillofac Sci.2016;1(3):38-43. *Corresponding author: Sarlati38 F Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences, Vol 1,No 3, Summer 2016 http://www.jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir Email: [email protected] Comparative evaluation of immediate effect of root instrumentation Introduction: et al have reported a higher immediate clinical Periodontal treatment must include suprag- attachment loss with tin tip rather than traditional ingival plaque control and subgingival scaling. tip.(14) There are no data comparing the attach- Subgingival scaling is a mechanical treatment ment loss occurring after subgingival scaling aimed at removing plaque, calculus and food de- performed with hand instruments and thin tip ul- bris, whether inside pockets, free or on root sur- trasonic scaler. The objective of this single-blind face.(1) Subgingival scaling may be accomplished split mouth study was to compare the immediate with different instruments such as hand and ul- attachment loss caused by instrumentation using trasonic instruments. Manual scaling and root Gracey curettes and Mini-insert ultrasonic scal- planing can often be difficult and time-consum- ers. ing due to complex and unfavorable root mor- phology when working blindly at deep pocket Materials and Methods: sites.(2) Study design: Many clinical studies have reported equal This single-blind split mouth clinical trial in- clinical outcomes of root debridement with hand cluded 15 subjects, 30-44 years old with moder- instruments, ultrasonic and sonic scalers (3-5), even ate chronic periodontitis that referred to the De- in smokers, although less favorable results have partment of Periodontics, Dental Branch, Islamic been achieved compared with those of nonsmok- Azad University. They presented at least five ers. 6 One major advantage of power-driven scal- periodontal pockets around incisors and canines ers is better access to difficult areas, such as deep (upper and /or lower) with clinical attachment narrow defects, root grooves and furcations, us- levels ranging from 2 to 4 mm. All the subjects ing newly designed micro-ultrasonic tips, which were chosen based on specific selection crite- are smaller in diameter and able to penetrate the ria: good general health, at least 30 years of age, pocket approximately 1 mm farther than hand in- presence of at least 5 periodontal pockets around struments.(7,8) These new mini-inserts were first lower and/or upper incisors. Exclusion criteria introduced in 1992.(9) Since then many manufac- included: use of antibiotics within 3 months prior turers have offered a wide variety of these fine to or during the study, use of any drugs interfer- inserts. Although longitudinal follow-up stud- ing with tissue metabolism such as Niphedipine, ies have reported favorable results following Verapamil, and Phenytoin. Patients undergo- subgingival scaling, with both hand and ultra- ing orthodontic therapy and patients with any sonic instruments , excessive penetration of the systemic diseases were also excluded from the periodontal scaler to the bottom of gingival pock- study. All the subjects signed an informed con- et causes harmful effects . However, clinical data sent. The study protocol has been approved by relating to the immediate attachment loss after the ethical committee of Dental Branch, Islamic ultrasonic scaling with these newly designed tips Azad University. are scarce. (10,11) Claffey et al reported an average Initial preparation: attachment loss of 0.5-0.6 mm immediately af- On the first visit, all the subjects received oral ter a single session of ultrasonic instrumentation hygiene instructions and were subjected to su- with conventional ultrasonic tips.(12) pragingival scaling with an ultrasonic scaler. In- Alves et al in 2004 reported a mean attach- dividual acrylic occlusal stents were made from ment loss of 0.76-1.06 mm after scaling and root plaster casts to standardize Relative Attachment planing with hand instruments.(13) In 2005, Alves Level measurements. et al reported a mean immediate attachment loss Relative attachment level (RAL) measure- of 0.75 mm after scaling and root planing with ment: either curettes or conventional ultrasonic scal- One week later, the patients were probed by a ers.(3) To our knowledge, there is only one study calibrated examiner. Calibration was performed measuring the immediate attachment loss after prior to the study and on the basis of duplicate scaling caused by thin ultrasonic tips.(14) Casarin http://www.jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences,Vol 1,No 3, Summer 2016 39 F.Sarlati,et al . clinical recordings in 3 patients. This procedure Intra-examiner repeatability was suitable was done with a pressure sensitive probe (Aes- (Spearman correlation coefficient equal to 0.892, culap DB764R, UNC 15, Meslungen, Germany) P<0.001). with defined probing force of 0.2 N (20 g). RAL As shown in table 1, in US group mean RAL was measured by the probe from a groove at the was 13.6± 1.4 mm immediately before scaling occlusal stent to the bottom of the pocket at four and 14± 1.4 mm immediately after instrumenta- sites per tooth (mesiobuccal, midbuccal, disto- tion. The mean difference in RAL for this group buccal & midlingual). The attachment loss due was 0.43±0.65 mm and this difference was sta- to trauma from instrumentation was calculated tistically significant (P<0.0001). In CS group, by the difference between RAL measurements mean RAL was 13.6± 1.7 mm immediately be- registered immediately before and after scaling fore scaling and 14.1±1.7mm immediately after it. The mean difference in RAL was 0.47± 0.6 and root planing.(14) mm and this difference was statistically signifi- Scaling and root planing: cant (P<0.0001). No statistically significant dif- After the probing, the selected anterior teeth ference was observed in RAL changes between were anesthetized and were randomly assigned the two groups. (P=0.77) to one of the two groups: Curette scaling (CS) The percentage of sites that showed immedi- and Ultrasonic scaling (US). The selected anteri- ate attachment loss between 0.1 and 1.0 mm was or teeth of CS group were scaled and root planed 95% for both US and CS groups. The percentage with Gracey 5-6 conventional curettes (Hufriedy, of sites that showed immediate attachment loss Chicago, IL, USA). The curettes were sharpened of over 1mm was 5% for both groups. whenever necessary. The selected anterior teeth Table 2 shows the mean RAL immediately of US group were scaled and root planed with an before and after instrumentation in each group ultrasonic scaler (#100 thin tip, UI30SF100 Hu- at each measurement site (mesiobuccal, mid- friedy, Chicago, IL, USA). For US group, each buccal, distobuccal and midlingual). The mean selected site was scaled by 30 movements. Simi- difference in each area was statistically signifi- larly, each site received 30 strokes in CS group. cant. (mesiobuccal; P=0.041 for CS group and Scaling and root planing in this study was done P=0.048 for US group, midbuccal; P=0.14 for by one clinician other than the one who meas- CS group and P=0.007 for US group, distobuc- cal; P=0.014 for CS group and P=0.041 for US ured the RAL.