Clinical attachment loss produced by curettes and ultrasonic scalers

Objectives: The aim of this study was to clinically detect the immediate effect of root instrumentation with curettes and ultrasonic scalers on clinical attachment level. Material and Methods: Twelve subjects with moderate chronic periodontitis, presenting probing depths of 3.5–6.5 mm on anterior te...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical periodontology 2005-07, Vol.32 (7), p.691-694
Main Authors: Alves, Renato Vasconcelos, Machion, Luciana, Casati, Màrcio Zaffalon, Nociti Jr, Francisco Humberto, Sallum, Enilson Antonio, Sallum, Antonio Wilson
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
attachment loss
Dental Instruments - adverse effects
Dental Scaling - adverse effects
Dental Scaling - instrumentation
Dentistry
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Periodontal Attachment Loss - etiology
periodontal curettes
Periodontics - instrumentation
Periodontitis - therapy
scaling
Subgingival Curettage - instrumentation
trauma from instrumentation
ultrasonic scalers
Ultrasonic Therapy - adverse effects
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives: The aim of this study was to clinically detect the immediate effect of root instrumentation with curettes and ultrasonic scalers on clinical attachment level. Material and Methods: Twelve subjects with moderate chronic periodontitis, presenting probing depths of 3.5–6.5 mm on anterior teeth, upper and/or lower, were selected. Teeth were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: US group – scaled with an ultrasonic scaler; and CC group – scaled and planed with 5–6 Gracey curettes. The selected teeth were probed with a computerized electronic probe, guided by an occlusal stent and subjected to scaling and root planing. Immediately following instrumentation, teeth were probed again. The difference between relative attachment level (RAL) immediately before and after instrumentation was considered trauma from instrumentation. Results: Intra‐group analysis revealed statistically significant differences between RAL immediately before and after instrumentation in both groups (0.77±0.51 for US group; and 0.73±0.41 for CC group, p
ISSN:0303-6979
1600-051X
DOI:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00713.x