Clinical Uses and Benefits of Ultrasonic Scalers as Compared to Curets: A Review
A Chatterjee, CS Baiju, S Bose, SS Shetty
Citation Information :
Chatterjee A, Baiju C, Bose S, Shetty S. Clinical Uses and Benefits of Ultrasonic Scalers as Compared to Curets: A Review. J Oral Health Comm Dent 2013; 7 (2):108-113.
Complete cementum removal is no longer a requisite. Many studies have demonstrated that hand and power-driven instruments are equally effective in reducing the probing depth, attaining attachment level gains and reducing inflammation by removal of plaque bacteria, calculus, and endotoxin. Power-driven instruments have many advantages over the manual scalers; however, further studies are needed to improve the performance of currently available instruments. These include the development of a more effective tip and ultrasonic generator unit. Long-term randomized controlled studies are also required to examine the efficacy of the newly designed scalers. These studies would help to provide treatment based on exact information regarding the instrument and technology.
Every instrument comes with its own disadvantages and advantages but when proper protocol is followed the instrument can be put to its best use for the comfort of the patient and the operator. The use of Ultrasonic in periodontal surgery definitely has benefits but the choice to use hand instrument or ultrasonic instruments depends solely in the manual skill, expertise and preference of the clinician.
Effects of ultrasonic and sonic scalers on dental plaque microflora in vitro and in vivo. J Clin Periodontol 1992;19:455–59.
Clinical comparison of the effectiveness of novel sonic instruments and curettes for periodontal debridement after 2 months. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28:1145–50.
Comparative effectiveness of ultrasonic and hand scaling for the removal of subgingival plaque and calculus. J Periodontol 1987;58:9–18.
A comparative in vitro study of a magnetostrictive and a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling instrument. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28:642–49.
Somerman MJ, Iacono V, Genco RJ. Position paper: sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontics. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol 2007;78(8):1476.
Dent Clin North Am 1998;42(2):229–44.
The effect of hygiene instruments on dentin surfaces: scanning electron microscopic observations. J Periodontol 1992;63:151–57.
J Clin Periodontol 2002;29(3):72–81.
Scaling and root planing without overinstrumentation: hand versus power-driven scalers. Curr Opin Periodontol 1993;78–88.
Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol 2000;71(11):1792–801.
Guidelines for Infection Control in Dental Health-Care Settings - 2003. MMWR 2003;52(No. RR-17):28:34.
Total calculus removal: an attainable objective? J Periodontol 1990;61:16–20.
Hand versus ultrasonic instrumentation in the removal of endotoxins from root surfaces in vitro. J Periodontol 1988;59:398–402.
Assessment of ultrasonic debridement of calculus-associated periodontally-involved root surfaces by the limulus amoebocyte lysate assay. An in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 1991; 18:240–44.
The distribution of bacterial lipopoly-saccharide (endotoxin) in relation to periodontally involved root surfaces. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13:748–51.
Dental plaque removal by cavitational activity during ultrasonic scaling. J Clin Periodontol 1988;15:539–43.
J Clin Periodontol 2003;30:95–101.
Bacterial contamination of scrub jackets during dental hygiene procedure. J Dent Hygiene 1998;72:19.
Selective interference with pacemaker activity by electrical dental services. Oral surgery Oral Medicine Oral Radiology Endodontic 1998;85:33.
