4.+Efficacy+of+Manual+Root+Planing+vs.+Power+Scaling



Efficacy of Manual Root Planing vs. Power Scaling Michele Carr, RDH. (1999). //Ultra Sonics//. Access—Special Supplemental Issue 1. May - June 1999. Retrieved on 3/6/2012 from []

The most effective approach to treat periodontal disease is the combined approach. Ultrasonic instruments are valuable adjunct to hand scaling. They are proven to be effective in treating periodontal diseases when they are used properly. Power driven instruments have limitations as well as advantages. Types of power instruments include sonic and ultrasonic. Sonic units use compress air, while ultrasonic include two types: piezoelectric and magneto-strictive. Yelena Bobova #23

Taner, A., Yasin, C., & Cenk, C. F. (2007, September 14). Sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontal treatment: a review. //International Journal of Dental Hygiene//. Retrieved March 9, 2012, from []

According to my article it states that studies have found no difference between power scaling and manual in regards to removal of deposits from the tooth surfaces if the procedure is done equally. However they did note the post roughness of the root surface when comparing manual scaling to power scaling…noting that manual scaling left the root surfaces smother which is beneficial hence bacterial adhesion to rough surfaces. Caranza states that hoes, files and large ultra sonic tips can be more damaging to the root surface and surounding tissue than currets. They also mention that thin ultrasonic tips can access deep pockets and fucations but should be used on low power and to use a higher power tip for heavy calculus to prevent burnishing of the calculus. They belive that ultrasonic scaling shold be followed by exporing and then hand scaling using the area specific instruments and correct angulation and adaptation to remove subginival calculus. Ca20

Lundergan, W. P. (2003). Ultrasonic Debridement versus Hand Scaling/Root Planing. In, //Critical Decisions in Periodontology// (pp. 86-87). People's Medical Publishing House USA Ltd (PMPH).

The big idea of my article was that there were is no difference in clinical results between hand scaling and ultrasonic scaling. The article states that, unless there is a contraindication, it is up to the patients and their preference to determine if the would like to be hand scaled or have the ultra sonic scaler used. The article states that if the patient doesn't have a preference that both the ultrasonic scaler and hand scaler can be used for best results.

According to Caranza, the clinical outcomes of ultrasonic scaling and hand scaling are very similar and both show to be effective in improving reducing pocket depths and BOP. However, hand instrumentation has shown to create a smoother root surface than ultra sonic scaling alone. To me it is unclear whether or not Carranza position is that ultrasonic scaling can be replacement for hand scaling, but from the wording used in the text it seems as though is position is that ultra sonic scaling is used as an adjunct only to hand scaling and makes the task of removing large deposits "less demanding" (Caranza p.831)-He notes the contraindications to ultrasonic scaling and discusses the increased accumulation of aerosols with ultrasonic scaling. Carranza also notes that the tip design of the ultra sonic scalers have improved in recent years and have become more effective in removing certain deposits in shallow pockets or furcation areas. (Caranza, p. 829-833)

KR32

Walmsley, A., Lea, S., Landini, G., & Moses, A. (2008). Advances in power driven/root instrumentatin. Journal of Clinical Periodontolog, 3522-28.

My article discusses that both power scaling and hand scaling are effective in disrupting biofilm, plaque, or calculus. They mention hand scaling being the method of choice although it seems to be a trend that clinicians are selecting power scaling over hand instruments. In Caranza, it mentions that the most effective method for treatment of periodontal disease is using a combination of ultrasonic scalers and hand instrumentation. Both articles mention that there are thinner tips for ultrasonic tips that can have better access to areas with furcations. In my article they mentioned the potential for damage to the root surface when using ultrasonic scalers. In Caranza they talk about hand instruments such as hoes and files having the potential to cause trauma to the root surfaces and surrounding tissues unlike curettes. (p.777) My article and Caranza both shared very similar information regarding ultrasonic scaling versus hand scaling. ES 33

AH28 Oda, S., Nitta, H., Setoguchi, T., Izumi, Y., & Ishikawa, I. (2004). Current concepts and advances in manual and power-driven instrumentation. Periodontology 2000, 36(1), 45-58. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0757.2004.03674.x

My article mentions that both hand scaling and power instruments are effective in removal of plaque, calculus, pocket, reduction, inflammation reduction, and for scaling furcations and deep pockets. The most important thing is making sure to use the right tips and instruments in the right situation to be effective. Carranza stated that both have their pros and cons and should be utilized together for the best treatment. My aritcle also stated that excessive smoothing of roots was not as necessary as previously thought and Carranza also stated that power scalers leave root surfaces just as smooth as hand scalers if used properly.

Rajiv, N. P., & Galgali, S. R. (2010). Comparison of Various Root Planing Instruments: Hand and Ultrasonic--Standard Smooth and Diamond Coated: An in vivo Study. //World Journal Of Dentistry, 1(3),// 149-157. Retrieved by http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=11&sid=233fe464-d00e-4238-bdd4-72c8055201b3%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ddh&AN=59388930

According to Caranza in order to provide a smooth surface while root planing the best instrument to achieve this is the currettes. The powerscalers are too bulky and cannot be inserted easily into deep pockets. My article talks about how the powerscalers used are not to efficient while root planning because the result where roughen areas as well as scratches and loss of tooth substance. Monica Gutierrez#27

Tunkel, J. J., Heinecke, A. A., & Flemmig, T. F. (2002). A systematic review of efficacy of machine-driven and manual subgingival debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. //Journal Of Clinical Periodontology//, //29//72-81. doi:10.1034/j.1600- 051X.29.s3.4.x

After reading Carranza, I feel that the article I chose really coincided with what the book explained. Carranza explained that research shows that there is no significant difference between hand scaling and power scaling for single rooted teeth. Due the emergence of thinner tips for the power scalers, power driven instruments can effectively be used for scaling. Carranza also explains that power scalers are shown to be more effective than hand instruments when it comes to class II and class III furcations, which is also mentioned in the article I chose. Elina Sandoval #34

The big idea of my article is that there is no difference in results of hand instrumentation compared to ultrasonic scaling. The article explains that you should decide which to use based off your personal preference, and that ultrasonic scalers are beneficial to use because it is less physically stressful on the operator. After reading Carranza, he basically says similiar things such as the ultrasonic is good to use because of less stress. He also explains that ultrasonic scalers are effective in removing plaque and calculus, and are also more beneficial in removing bacteria in class II and III furcations. Carranza does explain some special considerations when using an ultrasonic scaler, such as the aerosol production, neurological disturbances of the hand caused by vibration, hearing loss, and interfernece with cardiac pacemakers.

Obeid, P. R., D'Hoore, W., & Bercy, P. (2004). Comparative clinical responses related to the use of various periodontal instrumentation. //Journal Of Clinical Periodontology//, //31//(3), 193-199. doi:10.1111/j.0303-6979.2004.00467.x

Amber starnes 36

Ito, K., Kawashima, H., Kishida, M., & Sato, S. (2007). A comparison of root surface instrumentation using two piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers and a hand scaler in vivo. //Journal of Periodontal Research, 42 (1), pp. 90-95.// Power scalers are very effective at removing large pieces of calculus and help the clinician because hand scaling alone can be exhausting and demanding. Sonic, ultrasonic, and hand scaling are all effective at removing calculus. Ultrasonic devices conserve the root surface while removing calculus and endotoxins. Hand scaling seems to leave a smoother root surface than power scaling. Velinda Davis #24

A., Krause, F., Frentzen, M., & Jepsen, S. (2005). Efficiency of subgingival calculus removal with the Vector-system compared to ultrasonic scaling and hand instrumentation in vitro. //Journal Of Periodontal Research//, //40//(1), 48-52. Retrieved march 9, 2012 from: [|http://ezproxy.mvc.edu:2074/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=21&sid=05bef4fc-ee90-4675-ae6f-e86628115eb6%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mnh&AN=15613079].

In the article above it explains that there is no difference between power scaling and hand scaling in terms of calculus removal, but hand scaling is more time consuming than power scaling. It also agrees with Carranza that both used together have the best results. Carranza explains the different types of power scalers which include sonic scalers that are air driven, and ultrasonic scalers which include the piezoelectric and the magnestostrictive. Carranza also agrees that there is no difference between hand or power scaling (sonic or ultrasonic). Natalie Baeza #22

--- Ruhling, A., Schlemme, H., Konig, J., Kocher, T., Schwahn, C., & Plagmann, H. (2002). Learning root debridement with curettes and power- driven instruments. Part I: a training program to increase effectivity. //Journal Of Clinical Periodontology//, //29//(7), 622-629.

After reading Carranza and the article that I had chosen the big idea for this topic is that ultra-sonic and sonic driven power scalers are never a substitute for hand scaling in accessing difficult to reach areas in patients pockets. The best resolution can be achieved with using both techniques together. -A Yanez 37 --- Santos, F., Pochapski, M., Leal, P., Gimenes-Sakima, P., & Marcantonio, E. (2008). Comparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surface in vivo. //Clinical Oral Investigations //, //12 //(2), 143-150.

The big idea of my article was to show that there was no significant difference between the piezoelectric device, the magnetostrictive device, and the hand scalers. One thing I noticed that my article did not really focus on was the fact that the ultrasonic devices and the hand scalers should both be used in order to be the most effective in removing calculus. When reading Carranza it seemed like the big idea was that ultrasonic scalers provide some benefits to make it easier to scale heavier patients and that it is used in "adjuct", meaning that hand scalers should also be included. SF 25

Sculean, A., Schwarz, F., Berakdar, M., Romanos, G., Brecx, M., Willershausen, B., & Becker, J. (2004). Non-surgical periodontal treatment with a new ultrasonic device (Vector-ultrasonic system) or hand instruments. Journal Of Clinical Periodontology, 31(6), 428-433. According to my article there was no difference between manual scaling and root planning and power scaling. However, Carranza explained that when power scaling is used in conjunction with hand scaling that is when the best results are achieved. According to Carranza power scalers are more effective in scaling class II and III furcations as well. Charlene Malit #29