A comparison of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling devices: an in vitro study

被引:22
作者
Yousefimanesh, Hojatollah [1 ]
Robati, Maryam [2 ]
Kadkhodazadeh, Mahdi [3 ]
Molla, Reza [4 ]
机构
[1] Ahwaz Jundishapour Univ Med Sci, Fac Dent, Dept Periodontol, Ahvaz, Iran
[2] Ahwaz Jundishapour Univ Med Sci, Fac Dent, Dept Oral Med, Ahvaz, Iran
[3] Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci, Fac Dent, Dept Periodontol, Tehran, Iran
[4] Mashhad Univ Med Sci, Fac Dent, Dept Periodontol, Mashhad, Iran
关键词
Dental calculus; Dental scaling; Tooth extraction;
D O I
10.5051/jpis.2012.42.6.243
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: The effects of magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on tooth surfaces seem to differ with regard to the root surface roughness they produce. This study aimed to compare the results of scaling using magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices on extracted teeth. Methods: Forty-four human extracted teeth were assigned to four study groups (n=11). In two groups (C100 and C200), the teeth were scaled using a magnetostrictive device and two different lateral forces: 100 g and 200 g, respectively. In the other two groups (P100 and P200), the teeth were scaled with a piezoelectric device with 100 g and 200 g of lateral force, respectively. The teeth were scaled and the data on the duration of scaling and the amount of surface were collected and analyzed using the t-test. Results: The mean time needed for instrumentation for the piezoelectric and magnetostrictive devices was 50: 54 and 41: 10, respectively, but their difference was not statistically significant (P=0.171). For root surface roughness, we only found a statistically significantly poorer result for the C200 group in comparison to the P200 group (P=0.033). Conclusions: This study revealed that applying a piezoelectric scaler with 200 g of lateral force leaves smoother surfaces than a magnetostrictive device with the same lateral force.
引用
收藏
页码:243 / 247
页数:5
相关论文
共 13 条
  • [1] Arabaci T, 2007, Int J Dent Hyg, V5, P2, DOI 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2007.00217.x
  • [2] A comparative in vitro study of a magnetostrictive and a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling instrument
    Busslinger, A
    Lampe, K
    Beuchat, M
    Lehmann, B
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2001, 28 (07) : 642 - 649
  • [3] COMPARATIVE-ANALYSIS BETWEEN A MODIFIED ULTRASONIC TIP AND HAND INSTRUMENTS ON CLINICAL-PARAMETERS OF PERIODONTAL-DISEASE
    COPULOS, TA
    LOW, SB
    WALKER, CB
    TREBILCOCK, YY
    HEFTI, AF
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1993, 64 (08) : 694 - 700
  • [4] Working parameters of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler influencing root substance removal in vitro
    Flemmig, TF
    Petersilka, GJ
    Mehl, A
    Hickel, R
    Klaiber, B
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1998, 69 (05) : 547 - 553
  • [5] The effect of working parameters on root substance removal using a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler in vitro
    Flemmig, TF
    Petersilka, GJ
    Mehl, A
    Hickel, R
    Klaiber, B
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 1998, 25 (02) : 158 - 163
  • [6] COMPARATIVE INVITRO STUDIES OF SONIC, ULTRASONIC AND RECIPROCATING SCALING INSTRUMENTS
    JOTIKASTHIRA, NE
    LIE, T
    LEKNES, KN
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 1992, 19 (08) : 560 - 569
  • [7] Methodology of three-dimensional determination of root surface roughness
    Kocher, T
    Langenbeck, N
    Rosin, M
    Bernhardt, O
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERIODONTAL RESEARCH, 2002, 37 (02) : 125 - 131
  • [8] INFLUENCE OF TOOTH INSTRUMENTATION ROUGHNESS ON SUBGINGIVAL MICROBIAL COLONIZATION
    LEKNES, KN
    LIE, T
    WIKESJO, UME
    BOGLE, GC
    SELVIG, KA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1994, 65 (04) : 303 - 308
  • [9] Comparative clinical responses related to the use of various periodontal instrumentation
    Obeid, PR
    D'Hoore, W
    Bercy, P
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2004, 31 (03) : 193 - 199
  • [10] Safety and efficiency of novel sonic scaler tips in vitro
    Petersilka, GJ
    Draenert, M
    Mehl, A
    Hickel, R
    Flemmig, TF
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2003, 30 (06) : 551 - 555