ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2016
Characteristics of the molar surface after removal of cervical enamel projections: comparison of three different rotating instruments.
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The efficacy of endoscope-guided ultrasonic treatment for cervical enamel projections in furcation areas: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Profilometric evaluation of root surface roughness using pumice and zirconium silicate polishing agents.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Investigation of the furcation morphology of permanent mandibular first molars by using micro-computed tomography.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Biometric analysis of furcation area of molar teeth and its relationship with instrumentation.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Cytotoxic Effects on Gingival Mesenchymal Stromal Cells and Root Surface Modifications Induced by Some Local Antimicrobial Products Used in Periodontitis Treatment.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Surface roughness of enamel and root surface after scaling, root planning and polishing procedures: An in-vitro study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare tooth surface characteristics in extracted human molars after cervical enamel projections (CEPs) were removed with the use of three rotating instruments.
methodsWe classified 60 extracted molars due to periodontal lesion with CEPs into grade I, II, or III, according to the Masters and Hoskins' criteria. Each group contained 20 specimens. Three rotating instruments were used to remove the CEPs: a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler, a periodontal bur, and a diamond bur. Tooth surface characteristics before and after removal of the projections were then evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). We analyzed the characteristics of the tooth surfaces with respect to roughness and whether the enamel projections had been completely removed.
resultsIn SEM images, surfaces treated with the diamond bur were smoothest, but this instrument caused considerable harm to tooth structures near the CEPs. The piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler group produced the roughest surface but caused less harm to the tooth structure near the furcation. In general, the surfaces treated with the periodontal bur were smoother than those treated with the ultrasonic scaler, and the periodontal bur did not invade adjacent tooth structures.
conclusionsFor removal of grade II CEPs, the most effective instrument was the diamond bur. However, in removing grade III projections, the diamond bur can destroy both adjacent tooth structures and the periodontal apparatus. In such cases, careful use of the periodontal bur may be an appropriate substitute.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.