Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation in the treatment of chronic periodontitis after supragingival plaque control

• Autor(a) principal: Chapper,Ana
• Data de Publicação: 2005
• Outros Autores: Catão,Viviane Vasconcelos, Oppermann,Rui Vicente
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Brazilian Oral Research
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242005000100008
• topic: Periodontitis/therapy; Dental scaling; Dental plaque/prevention & control; Ultrasonics; Root planing

This study compared the clinical effects of hand or ultrasonic scaling and root planing on the treatment of chronic periodontitis. After supragingival plaque control, twenty patients were examined by a blinded and calibrated examiner for probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Experimental teeth were allocated to the following subgingival treatment groups according to PPD: 1) hand instrumentation; 2) hand instrumentation with irrigation; 3) ultrasonic instrumentation; 4) ultrasonic followed by hand instrumentation. Time used in the procedures was recorded. Follow-up examinations were performed at 30 and 90 days after treatment. Each patient's individual BOP, PPD and CAL means were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVA. Differences in the instrumentation time were analyzed with 1-way ANOVA. Significance level was established at 5%. All treatments produced significant changes in the clinical parameters. BOP reduced, in proximal surfaces, from 67.21-79.17% at baseline to 45.75-51.54% at 90 days. Significant reductions were also found for PPD and CAL in all groups, both in proximal and free surfaces. Reductions in mean PPD at 90 days ranged from 0.92 to 1.14 mm for the free surfaces and from 1.01 to 1.35 mm for proximal surfaces, whereas reductions in CAL ranged from 0.43 to 0.82 mm and from 0.60 to 0.73 mm for free and proximal surfaces, respectively. Mean instrumentation time ranged from 4.77 to 5.30 minutes. No statistically significant differences were found among the four study groups. It can be concluded that the four methods of subgingival instrumentation were equally efficacious in the improvement of the studied clinical parameters.