Premium
Subgingival polishing compared to scaling with steel curettes: a clinical pilot study
Author(s) -
Kocher Thomas,
König Jörgen,
Hansen Peter,
Rühling Andreas
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2001.028002194.x
Subject(s) - curette , dentistry , polishing , scaling and root planing , quadrant (abdomen) , materials science , bleeding on probing , instrumentation (computer programming) , orthodontics , medicine , periodontal disease , periodontitis , chronic periodontitis , surgery , composite material , computer science , operating system
Abstract Background: Recently, we have developed teflon‐coated sonic scaler inserts which remove plaque without removing tooth substance; they polish subgingivally. In a preclinical test, we showed that these modified inserts remove plaque nearly as effectively as do conventional sonic scaler inserts. The present investigation was intended as a proof‐of‐principle of subgingival polishing. The aim was to study the effect of subgingival polishing on the resolution of gingival inflammation in comparison to conventional scaling. Material and methods: In 10 patients with moderate to advanced periodontal disease, who had at least 2 single‐rooted teeth with a probing depth of >6 mm in each quadrant, all single‐rooted teeth were subjected to one treatment regimen consisting of 2 instrumentation episodes (1st/2nd treatment): curette/curette, curette/teflon‐coated sonic scaler, teflon‐coated sonic scaler/teflon‐coated sonic scaler, and an untreated control. The second treatment session was performed 3 months after the first instrumentation, and the final registration 3 months after the second instrumentation. Clinical measurements included probing depth, change of clinical attachment level, bleeding upon probing, and plaque scores. Results: Probing depth, attachment level, and bleeding scores were reduced in the 3 instrumentation groups versus the control group in the 1st period; in the 2nd period, no further change occurred. Subgingival polishing with teflon‐coated sonic scaler inserts was slightly less effective than conventional scaling. Conclusion: Subgingival polishing with teflon‐coated sonic scaler inserts seems to be nearly as effective as conventional scaling. Thus, it may be the instrumentation of choice for maintenance treatment of residual pockets.