Morphology and adhesion on blood components in root surfaces treated by a piezoelectric ultrasonic: an in vitro study

• Autor(a) principal: Tsurumaki, Jackeline Nascimento [UNESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• Outros Autores: Souto, Bráulio Henrique Marques [UNESP], Oliveira, Guilherme José Pimentel Lopes de [UNESP], Sampaio, José Eduardo Cézar [UNESP], Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana Chierici [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://www.revistargo.com.br/viewarticle.php?id=2304; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/125607
• topic: Dental scaling; Regeneration; Ultrasonic; Raspagem dentária; Regeneração; Ultrassom

The aim of this study was to evaluate the morphology and adhesion of blood components on root surfaces instrumented with piezoelectric ultrasonic Piezon Master Surgery. Methods 10 teeth were used in this study. The teeth had their proximal divided into four areas that received different treatments: Group 1: untreated control Group 2: scaling with manual instrument; Group 3: scaling with ultrasound; Group 4: Scaling with manual instruments and ultrasound. We obtained 20 samples, 10 of which were used to analyze the morphology and the other 10 were used for analysis of adhesion of blood components. The specimens were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. Photomicrographs were analyzed by the scores of adhesion of blood components and the index of root morphology. The results were statistically by the Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney with a significance level of 95%. Results The morphological analysis showed that the Group 1 had a surface unchanged in relation to other groups (Group 1 X Group 2 = 0.0025; Group 1 X Group 3 = 0.0003; Group 1 X Group 4 = 0.0003) and Group 2 presented a smoother surface compared to Group 1 and groups instrumented with ultrasound (Group 2 X Group 3 = 0.0025; Group 2 X Group 4 = 0.0025) there were no statistical differences between the Groups 3 and 4. analysis of adhesion of blood components showed that the Groups 2, 3 and 4 had no statistically significant differences between themselves, but more biocompatible surfaces promoted the surface untreated control (Group 1 X Group 2 = 0.02; Group 1 X Group 3 = 0.04; Group 1 X Group 4 = 0.005). Conclusion The instrumentation with piezoelectric ultrasonic promoted an irregular root surface, but did not negatively affect the adhesion of blood components.