We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 41 (2010), No. 3     28. Jan. 2010
Quintessence Int 41 (2010), No. 3  (28.01.2010)

Page 249-256, doi:10.3290/j.qi.a18386, PubMed:20213026


Influence of immediate attachment loss during instrumentation employing thin ultrasonic tips on clinical response to nonsurgical periodontal therapy
Casarin, Renato Corrêa Viana / Bittencourt, Sandro / Ribeiro, Érica Del Peloso / Nociti jr., Francisco Humberto / Sallum, Antonio Wilson / Sallum, Enilson Antônio / Casati, Márcio Zafallon
Objective: Mechanical instrumentation is fundamental to periodontal treatment. However, independent of the instrument used in scaling, an immediate attachment loss occurs at the bottom of the periodontal pocket. This study aimed to determine the influence of tip diameter on attachment loss and the influence of attachment loss on the periodontal response to nonsurgical treatment.
Method and Materials: Fifteen patients presenting periodontal pockets with a probing depth of 3.5 mm or more in bilateral teeth were divided into two groups: test group-instrumented with a thin tip, and control group-instrumented with a traditional tip. Probing depth, relative gingival position, and relative attachment level were evaluated immediately before and after and at 1 and 3 months after treatment using an electronic computerized probe. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey tests (P = .05).
Results: Both groups presented attachment loss immediately after instrumentation; however, the thin tip resulted in statistically higher immediate clinical attachment loss than the traditional tip (0.85 and 0.15 mm, respectively; P < .0001). However, both groups showed a similar healing after the ultrasonic therapy, at all parameters evaluated (P > .05).
Conclusion: In spite of the higher immediate clinical attachment loss inflicted by thin ultrasonic tips during instrumentation, this did not affect the clinical response to the nonsurgical treatment.

Keywords: adverse effects, dental scaling, periodontitis, randomized clinical trial, thin tips, ultrasonic device