Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Home | About JISP | Search | Accepted articles | Online Early | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | SubmissionSubscribeLogin 
Users Online: 552  Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font sizeWide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout


 
   Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 96-100  

Ultra-morphology of root surface subsequent to periodontal instrumentation: A scanning electron microscope study


1 Department of Periodontics, Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, India
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, India

Date of Submission16-Jan-2010
Date of Acceptance09-Nov-2011
Date of Web Publication3-Apr-2012

Correspondence Address:
Parveen Dahiya
Department of Periodontics, Himachal Institute of Dental Sciences, Paonta Sahib, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh 173 025
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.94613

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Background: The aim of this study was to compare root surface characteristic following root planing with various hand and power driven instruments. Materials and Methods: A total of 20 single rooted teeth were used in this study, of which two specimens were used as control (no instrumentation done) and remaining 18 specimens were equally divided into three groups. Specimens from each group were then subjected to root planing by one of the following instruments: (1) a Gracey curette (2) Ultrasonic tip and (3) a Rotary bur. In each case, the time required for scaling and root planing was measured. After treatment, the specimens were observed under scanning electron microscope and surface roughness was measured by using Roughness and loss of tooth substance index (RLTSI). Results: The mean RLTSI scores for Gracey curette, ultrasonic and rotary instrument group were 2.5, 2.0 and 0.667 respectively. The mean scores of time spent for scaling and root planing by Gracey curette, ultrasonic and rotary instrument group in seconds were 42.50, 35.83 and 54.50. Conclusion: All the three instruments namely Gracey curette, Ultrasonic tip and Rotary bur were effective in mechanical debridement of root surface. The results favoured the use of rotary instruments for root planing to achieve smooth clean root surface; however, the use of rotary instrument was more time consuming which might limit its use in clinical practice.

Keywords: Gracey curette, periodontal disease, scaling, root planing, ultrasonic tip


How to cite this article:
Dahiya P, Kamal R. Ultra-morphology of root surface subsequent to periodontal instrumentation: A scanning electron microscope study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16:96-100

How to cite this URL:
Dahiya P, Kamal R. Ultra-morphology of root surface subsequent to periodontal instrumentation: A scanning electron microscope study. J Indian Soc Periodontol [serial online] 2012 [cited 2020 Apr 6];16:96-100. Available from: http://www.jisponline.com/text.asp?2012/16/1/96/94613


   Introduction Top


A primary goal in the treatment of periodontitis is the removal of bacterial deposits and the arrest of disease progression. Mechanical removal of these deposits from the root surface is required for establishing and maintaining periodontal health. Large number of studies has reported beneficial results from mechanical therapy in term of both clinical and microbiological aspects. [1],[2],[3] Since long, the hand instruments were the first choice of clinicians. It was believed that these instruments produced a smooth root surface; however, considerable manual dexterity is required for their effective operation. Moreover, hand instruments are more time consuming and are unable to reach deeper root surface where pockets are more than 4 mm deep. [4],[5] Ultrasonic tips were originally designed for gross scaling and removal of supragingival calculus and stains. More recently, these power driven instruments have been modified to have smaller diameter tips and longer working lengths, thereby providing better access to deep probing sites and more efficient subgingival instrumentation. Ultrasonic instruments are simple to use; however, it is often difficult to achieve a smooth and calculus free root surface. [6],[7]

To overcome these challenges associated with use of ultrasonic and hand scalers, rotary instruments for scaling and root planing have been developed. These are found to be more effective in root furrows, furcation areas and root surfaces in areas of deep and narrow infra bony pockets. [8] It has been now well documented that all the hand and power driven instruments cause some gouging and removal of tooth substance. This could have an important clinical implication keeping in view the problems of hypersensitivity and roughness of the root surfaces. Hence, the present study aimed to evaluate root surface characteristics following treatment with hand and power driven instruments.


   Materials and Methods Top


The teeth selected for study were extracted from patients who reported to the outpatient department of oral and maxillofacial surgery of Dayanand Anglo Vedic (DAV) Dental College and Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana (India). Teeth that had undergone a root canal and/or treatment associated with any periapical lesion, caries, or had history of scaling and root planing in previous 6 months were excluded from the study.

Collection and storage of teeth

20 single rooted human teeth, extracted due to severe chronic periodontitis and having hopeless prognosis with bone loss >70% and grade III mobility, were used in this study. The teeth were then washed with distilled water and treated with 2% sodium hypochlorite solution and then stored in normal saline until further study.

Preparation of teeth

Two specimens were used as control and remaining 18 specimens were equally divided in the following three groups.

  • Group I Specimens treated with hand instruments
  • Group II Specimens treated with ultrasonic instrument
  • Group III Specimens treated with rotary instrument
Control

The specimens of control group were thoroughly cleaned and washed using toothbrush only.

Hand instruments

1-2 and 3-4 Gracey Curettes (Hu-Friedy, USA) were used for instrumentation. Strokes were given on the proximal surfaces along the long axis of the root.

Ultrasonic instrument

Instrumentation was performed with Piezo-electric ultrasonic scaling unit (EMS SA, Germany). A sub-gingival slim perio (PS) ultrasonic tip was used according to the manufacturer's instruction under profuse rinsing with water spray and at a medium power setting. Lateral side of the ultrasonic tip was used with feather light touch. Unidirectional strokes were given on the proximal surfaces along the long axis of the teeth under study.

Rotary instruments

Rotary instruments were used with contra-angle hand piece of micro-motor for root instrumentation. These rotary carbide burs [Desmoclean (Hager, Germany)] were used at 8000 revolutions per minute (RPM) with light pressure and water spraying. These burs have non-cutting, elliptical, hexagonal, narrow and long heads (1:1) = 29 mm. Unidirectional strokes were given on the proximal surface along the long axis of the teeth. In our study, degree of sharpness, application force and clinician skills were maintained during the preparation of specimens. Degree of sharpness was maintained as curettes were sharpened after every 10 strokes to maintain a standard optimum sharpness. [9] The normal force was established based on the mean force generated on a gram scale by 6 trained periodontists with periodontal instruments. The standard force of 500 g or 5 N was chosen for the study because it would allow sufficient root surface removal that would be easily detectable by digital calliper and this force could be easily controlled, reproduced and verified in bench top analysis. [10] The application of this force was verified prior to instrumentation using a digital gram scale to ensure similar force with each instrument. [11] The proximal surfaces were chosen for the study as they have a higher surface area as compared to the buccal/labial or lingual/palatal surfaces, and thus help for better evaluation of the root surface characteristics. [12],[13] So as to maintain the skills as constant, a single clinician prepared all the specimens. After instrumentation, 7-8 mm of the treated root surface was cut by a carbide disc from the cementoenamel junction and the apical root pieces were discarded.

Measurement of time required for scaling and root planing

The length of time required for scaling and root planing with each instrument was measured by using a stopwatch from the start, until the root surface appeared smooth again upon visual inspection and examination with an explorer.

Preparation of root specimens for scanning electron microscope study

Following the mechanical treatment, all specimens were dehydrated in graded series of ethanol (50, 70, 80, 90, 95% and absolute alcohol using 100% acetone as the final step). The specimens were kept for half an hour in all grade series of ethanol and for 1 hour in 100% ethanol. The specimens were dried for half an hour. They were then mounted on the aluminum stub with an adhesive tape in such a way that root specimens were placed in the center of stubs. The specimens were then sputter coated with gold with the help of a sputter coating machine. The gold coating was done to ensure a proper conducting surface to the non-conducting specimens.

Determination of root surface roughness

The scanning electron microscope (SEM) photomicrographs at ×500 were scored blindly and independently by two investigators using roughness and loss of tooth substance index [Table 1]. To eliminate bias, the study was designed so that the person who evaluated roughness was unaware of the procedure used.
Table 1: Roughness and loss of tooth substance index scored by two examiners for three experimental groups (by Gracey curette, ultrasonic tips and rotary instrument groups) in the study

Click here to view


Roughness and loss of tooth substance index

0 Smooth and even root surface without marks from instrumentation and with no loss of tooth substance

1 Slightly roughened and corrugated local areas confined to cementum

2 Definitely corrugated local areas where cementum may be completely removed, although most of the overall cementum is still present

3 Considerable loss of tooth substance with instrumentation marks into the dentin. The cementum is completely removed in large areas. Or, it has a considerable number of lesions from the instrumentation.


   Results Top


Measurement of surface roughness

The mean roughness scores for Gracey curette, ultrasonic and rotary instrument group were 2.5, 2.0 and 0.667 respectively. This suggested that rotary instruments produced the smoothest surface followed by ultrasonic tips and hand curette. Results were significant when rotary instrument group was compared to Gracey curettes and ultrasonic group. However, non-significant differences were found while comparing Gracey curettes and ultrasonic groups [Table 2].
Table 2: Comparison of root roughness in all the three experimental groups (by Gracey curette, ultrasonic tips and rotary instrument groups) in the study

Click here to view


Measurement of time spent for scaling and root planing of test surface

The time required for treatment using a rotary instrument was significantly longer than that required by the Gracey curette and ultrasonic instrument tips. The mean scores for Gracey curette, ultrasonic and rotary instrument groups were 42.50, 35.83 and 54.50 second [Table 3]. Comparison of time spent by rotary instrument group with other two groups was significant. However, there were no significant differences between the ultrasonic and Gracey curette groups [Table 4].
Table 3: Measurement of time (in seconds) for instrumentation in three experimental groups (by Gracey curette, ultrasonic tips and rotary instrument groups) in the study

Click here to view
Table 4: Comparison of time in seconds for instrumentation in all the three experimental groups (by Gracey curette, ultrasonic tips and rotary instrument groups) in the study

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


In earlier studies, root surface roughness and tooth substance loss was evaluated by measuring the size of instrument marks, [14] by calculating weight of removed tooth surface, [15] by inspecting the surface under light microscope [16] and measuring the surface roughness by profilometer. The results of such studies have been variable and inconclusive; however, the use of scanning electron microscope can eliminate various difficulties encountered with other techniques of examining root surfaces and help us to have more definite results. Some studies reported significant differences in the tooth topography with respect to type and/or sharpness of the instrument, number of strokes used and whether the tooth was moist, and under copious lavage or dentifrice use. Sharp hand curette clearly planed away considerably more accretions and dental tissue than its dull counterparts. Hand instruments often produced a haphazard, irregular pattern particularly when vertical and horizontal strokes were combined. Distinct pattern was not noted with dull instruments. Therefore, increasing the number of strokes with dull curette might serve adequate to remove surface accretions with minimum of structural alteration of the tissues. [17]

In the present study, microscopic examination of the control specimens affected with periodontal disease showed areas of small foreign particles [Figure 1]. These particles were nodular and irregular in texture. These small foreign bodies were deposits of calculus. Other areas on root surface appeared amorphous and were suggestive of aggregates of microorganisms or plaque. Specimens treated with Gracey curette were comparatively smoother as compared to the control specimens [Figure 2]. However, deep scratches and gouging were present, representing the pathway of instrumentation and considerable loss of tooth substance during the root planing. Wilkinson suggested that even a delicate hand instrument creates irregularities and scratches on root surface, which would possibly be attributed to the microscopic roughness of the instrument's cutting edge. [18] The mean value of score as calculated by roughness and loss of tooth substance index was 2.5. This high mean value suggested that more of the tooth substance was removed by curette, resulting in a roughened root surface.
Figure 1: Morphology of root surface of control specimen, scanning electron microscope photograph, ×500

Click here to view
Figure 2: Morphology of root surface planed with Gracey curette, scanning electron microscope photograph, ×500

Click here to view


Ultrasonic instruments have been used as valuable adjuncts to conventional hand instruments for many years. Newly designed thin ultrasonic tips have allowed better access to sub-gingival areas previously accessible only with hand instruments. [19] Earlier studies using older tips' designs generally showed that ultrasonic instruments left a "stippled" root surface and had a greater potential for producing root surface damage than curettes. [20],[21] More recent studies, especially those using the newer, thinner tips show that ultrasonic instruments can produce root surfaces as smooth as or smoother than what is produced by the curettes. [22],[23] Current evidence suggests that ultrasonic tips used on medium power may do less damage to the root surface than the hand or sonic scalers. [24] Some studies suggested that the rotary instruments at high speed (2,00,000 revolutions per minute) and ultrasonic instruments caused more damaged to root surface when compared with hand curettes. [14] Lie and Mayer in 1977 found that diamond points with a constant speed of 3000 revolutions per minute produced the roughest surfaces when compared to hand curettes and ultrasonic instruments. [25]

The specimens treated with ultrasonic instrument provided an interesting topography [Figure 3]. The instrument created an irregular surface, consisting of depression and elevations. The mean score as calculated by RLTSI was 2.0. The specimens treated with rotary instruments were flat and smooth, with no signs of gouging and scratching [Figure 4]. The mean score for RLTSI was 0.667, which represented a smooth, flat and clear root surface. The specimens treated with rotary instruments produced the smoothest surface, which might be because the burs had a non-cutting, and elliptical or hexagonal in shape heads. The effectiveness of ultrasonic instrumentation as a function of time was proved by the present study. The mean time required for Gracey Curette instrumentation, ultrasonic instrumentation and rotary instrument group was 42.50 seconds, 35.83 seconds and 54.50 seconds, respectively. The result showed that far more time was required by the rotary instruments than the ultrasonic and hand instruments. However, the comparison of the curette and ultrasonic group was not significant (P>0.01). We would also acknowledge that a large sample size would have yield more statistically significant results as compared to smaller data; however, in the literature, there are a number of pubmed indexed studies in which the sample size is either less or comparable to our study. [26]
Figure 3: Morphology of root surface planed with ultrasonic instrument, scanning electron microscope photograph, ×500

Click here to view
Figure 4: Morphology of root surface planed with rotary bur, scanning electron microscope photograph, ×500

Click here to view



   Conclusion Top


In the present study, it was proved that all the three, namely curette, ultrasonic and rotary instruments were effective in mechanical debridement of the tooth root surface. The root surface treated with rotary instruments appeared flat and glossy to naked eye and the SEM pictures revealed the smoothest surface. The roughness produced by Gracey curette was found to be high, followed by ultrasonic tip and the rotary bur. The time spent for scaling and root planing with rotary bur was significantly long than the time needed for Gracey curette and ultrasonic tip instrumentation. The results favoured the use of rotary instruments for root planing to achieve a smooth clean root surface. However, the use of rotary bur was more time consuming which might limit its use in clinical practice. In the literature, there are number of in vitro studies that evaluated gracey curettes, sonic and ultrasonic scalers, diamond burs on the root surface characteristics; however, our study compared non cutting hexagonal carbide bur with the ultrasonic tip and Gracey curette by maintaining constant angulation, force and clinical skills. However, the therapeutic efficacy of these carbide burs can be better evaluated after long term clinical studies with some better clinical parameters on a large sample size.

Further researches in this area may include a quantitative study of tooth substance loss with various periodontal instruments and effects of root surface characteristics on fibroblast attachment after mechanical debridement. Such studies will be very helpful in opening new vistas of research for understanding the treatment modalities for optimal regeneration of supporting tissue onto the tooth surface affected by periodontitis.

 
   References Top

1.O' Leary TJ. The impact of research on scaling and root planing. J Periodontol 1986:57:69-75.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Ash MM, Gitlin. Correlation between plaque and gingivitis. J Periodontol 1964;35:424-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Sbordone L, Ramaglia L, Guletta E, Iacono V. Recolonization of subginvial microflora after scaling and root planing in human Periodontitis. J Periodontol 1990;61:579-84.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Rabbani GM, Ash MM Jr, Caffesse RG. The effectiveness of subgingival and root planing in calculus removal. J Periodontol 1981;52:119-23.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Waerhaug J. Healing to the dento - epithelial junction following subgingival plaque control. As observed on extracted teeth. J Periodontol 1978;49:119-34.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Moskow BS, Bressman E. Cemental response to ultrasonic and hand instrumentations. J Am Dent Assoc 1972;68:698-703.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Jones SJ, Lozdan J, Boyde A. Tooth surfaces treated in situ with periodontal instruments. Br Dent J 1972;132:57-64.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.Rylander H, Lindhe J. Cause related periodontal therapy. In: Lindhe J, KarringT, Lang NP, editors. Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry. Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 1997. p. 432-47. 8b (JPR, 2004, Vol.39,111-119).  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Lie T, Laknes KN. Evaluation of the effect on root surface of air turbine scalers and ultrasonic instrumentation. J Periodontol 1985;56:522-13.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Coldiron NB, Yukna RA, Weir J, Caudill RF. A quantitative study of cementum removal with hand curettes. J Periodontol 1990;61:293-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.Kishida M, Sato S, Ito K. Effect of new ultrasonic scaler on fibroblast attachment to root surfaces: A scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Periodontal Res 2004;39:111-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
12.Lavespere IE, Yukna RA, Rise DA, Leblanc DM. Root surface removal with diamond coated ultrasonic instrument: An in vitro and SEM study. J Periodontol 1996;67:1281-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.David RB, O'lery TJ, Ruth B. Comparative effectiveness of ultrasonic and hand scaling for removal of subgingival plaque and calculus. J Periodontol 1987;58:9-18.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Allen EF, Rhoads RH. Effect of high-speed periodontal instruments on tooth surface. J Periodontol 1963;34:352-60.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Ellman IA. Comparative safety of the ultrasonicsonic scaler and the curette. J Periodontol 1964;35:410-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Moskow BS, Bressmann E. Cemental Response to ultrasonic and hand instrumentation. J Am Dent Assoc 1963;68:698-703.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Ewen SJ, Gwinnett AJ. A scanning electron microscopic study of teeth following periodontal instrumentation. J Periodontol 1977;48:92-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]    
18.Wilkinson RF, Maybury JE. Scanning electron microscopy of the root surface following instrumentation. J Periodontol 1973;44:559-63.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]    
19.Chen SK, Vesley D, Brosseau LM, Vincent JH. Evaluation of single use masks and respirators for protection of health care workers against mycobacterial aerosols. Am J Infect Control 1994;22:65-70.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
20.Clark S, Group H, Mabler D. The effect of ultrasonic instrumentation on root surfaces. J Periodontol 1968;39:125-32.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Garrett JS. Effects of non-surgical periodontal therapy on Periodontitis in humans. A review. J Clin Periodontol 1983;10:515-21.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.Dragoo MR. A clinical evaluation of hand and ultrasonic instruments on subgingival debridement. Part I with unmodified and modified ultrasonic inserts. Int J Periodontol 1992;12:311-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Drisko CL. Scaling and root planing without over instrumentation: Hand versus poser - driven scalers. Curr Opin Periodontol 1993;3:78-84.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Jacobson L, Blomlof J. Root surface texture after different scaling modalities. Scan J Dent Res 1994;102:156-60.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Lie T, Mayer K. Calculus removal and loss of tooth substances in response to different periodontal instruments. J Clin Periodontol 1977;4:250-62.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Wilkinson RF, Maybury JE. Scanning electron microscopy of root surface following instrumentation. J Periodontol 1973;44:559-63.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2712    
    Printed103    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded405    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal