Comparative analysis between a modified ultrasonic tip and hand instruments on clinical parameters of periodontal disease

The goal of this study was to determine whether an ultrasonic scaler with a modified tip is as effective as a curet in providing supportive periodontal treatment for patients, based on clinical parameters of periodontal disease. Nine patients with 10 sites exhibiting probing pocket depth > or = 3...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Journal of periodontology (1970) Vol. 64; no. 8; p. 694
Main Authors:	Copulos, T A, Low, S B, Walker, C B, Trebilcock, Y Y, Hefti, A F
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	United States 01-08-1993
Subjects:	Adult Aged Analysis of Variance Dental Plaque - microbiology Dental Plaque Index Dental Scaling - instrumentation Female Gingival Crevicular Fluid - chemistry Gingival Crevicular Fluid - enzymology Humans Male Middle Aged Pancreatic Elastase - analysis Periodontal Diseases - enzymology Periodontal Diseases - microbiology Periodontal Diseases - pathology Periodontal Diseases - therapy Periodontal Index Root Planing - instrumentation Single-Blind Method Time Factors Ultrasonic Therapy - instrumentation
Online Access:	Get more information
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	The goal of this study was to determine whether an ultrasonic scaler with a modified tip is as effective as a curet in providing supportive periodontal treatment for patients, based on clinical parameters of periodontal disease. Nine patients with 10 sites exhibiting probing pocket depth > or = 3 mm were treated at 0, 90, and 180 days in a single-blind, split-mouth design for supportive periodontal treatment with either Gracey curets (GC) or an ultrasonic scaler with a modified tip (MU). Clinical parameters included plaque index, gingival index, bleeding on probing, darkfield microscopy, and elastase presence. Probing pocket depths and attachment levels were measured using an electronic probe. Measurements of clinical parameters were taken at 0, 14, 45, 90, 135, and 180 days. The results showed that treatment with MU was as effective as treatment with GC in all clinical parameters measured. Both treatment modalities were effective in reducing the elastase levels. Instrumentation time was significantly reduced with the MU (3.9 minutes vs. 5.9 minutes, P < 0.05). The MU instrument effectively reduced the microbial environment in a significantly shorter time as compared to GC.
ISSN:	0022-3492
DOI:	10.1902/jop.1993.64.8.694