Preservation of root cementum: a comparative evaluation of power‐driven versus hand instruments

International Journal of Dental Hygiene - Tập 16 Số 2 - Trang 202-209 - 2018
E Bozbay1, Francesco Dominici1, Aslan Gökbuget2, Serdar Çintan2, Luigi Guida3, Mehmet Şerif Aydın4, Agnese Mariotti5, Andrea Pilloni5,1
1Section of Periodontics, Department of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
2Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
3Department of Odontostomatological, Orthodontic and Surgical Disciplines, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy
4Department of Histology and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
5Division of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Tóm tắt

AbstractObjectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of three distinct periodontal treatment methods in comparison with hand instrumentation on residual cementum of periodontal diseased teeth. Cementum can influence the activities of periodontal cells and may play an important regulatory role in periodontal treatment. The ideal method for periodontal therapy involves removal of biofilm, calculus and endotoxin while preserving root cementum. Material and methods: Forty‐eight caries free, single‐rooted teeth in patients diagnosed with severe chronic periodontitis were treated using four different methods prior to extraction. The teeth were instrumented subgingivally at one approximal site either by hand curettes (HC), piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers (U), piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers following air polishing (U + AP) or air polishing (AP) alone. Following extraction of teeth, instrumented and non‐instrumented sites were analysed with a dissecting microscope and SEM for measurement of the amount of and surface characteristics of residual cementum. Results: The percentage of coronal cementum remaining following subgingival instrumentation was 84% for U, 80% for U + AP, 94% for AP and 65% for HC. Although subgingival instrumentation of apical portions of the cementum demonstrated 6% less retained cementum in comparison with coronal portions, the amount of retained cementum with AP was still significantly greater than with HC. SEM results found the smoothest root surfaces were produced by the HC followed by the AP, while root surfaces instrumented by U or U + AP presented grooves and scratches. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that AP was superior to U devices in preserving cementum, whereas HC were the most effective instruments in removing cementum.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1111/j.1600-0757.1997.tb00095.x

10.1111/j.1600-051X.1985.tb01388.x

10.1177/00220345920710071401

Aukhil I, 1991, Biology of tooth‐cell adhesion, Dent Clin N Am, 35, 459, 10.1016/S0011-8532(22)00850-3

10.1902/annals.1996.1.1.621

10.1902/jop.1978.49.7.337

10.1902/jop.1986.57.2.69

10.1902/jop.1974.45.2.107

10.1902/jop.1982.53.6.368

10.1111/j.1600-051X.1986.tb00877.x

10.1111/j.1600-051X.1988.tb01601.x

10.1034/j.1600-0757.2000.2240105.x

10.3109/03008209609000698

10.1177/154411130201300605

10.1111/j.1600-9657.1991.tb00214.x

10.1111/j.1600-051X.1992.tb00684.x

10.1902/jop.1996.67.12.1281

10.1007/s007840050011

10.1111/j.1600-051X.2001.281111.x

10.1034/j.1600-0765.2003.00376.x

Gagnot G, 2004, Comparative study of manual and ultrasonic instrumentation of cementum surfaces: influence of lateral pressure, Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 24, 137

10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00651.x

10.1902/jop.2005.76.11.1942

10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00705.x

10.1007/s00784-009-0379-9

10.1902/jop.2005.76.3.476

10.1111/j.1600-0765.2006.00924.x

Ruhling A, 2005, Subgingival, debridement with Teflon‐coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments and assessment of substance removal on extracted teeth, Quintessence Int, 36, 446

10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00306.x

10.1111/j.1600-0757.2010.00342.x

10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01751.x

10.1902/jop.2011.110367

10.1111/idh.12120

10.1902/jop.1990.61.5.293

10.1007/s00784-007-0167-3

10.1111/j.1600-051X.1991.tb00104.x

10.1111/j.1600-051X.1998.tb02422.x

10.1034/j.1600-051x.2001.028007642.x

10.1007/s00223-003-0195-1

10.1016/0003-9969(92)90132-R

10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00537.x

10.1111/j.1600-051X.1990.tb01058.x

10.1016/j.aanat.2007.10.006

10.1111/j.1600-0757.1999.tb00146.x

10.1111/j.1600-0757.1999.tb00144.x

10.1034/j.1600-0757.2000.2240113.x

10.1177/00220345870660082301

10.1111/j.1600-0765.1989.tb00869.x

10.1902/jop.1989.60.2.73

10.1021/bi00243a002

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

International Journal of Dental Hygiene

Tập 16 Số 2

202-209

Thông tin tác giả