ArticleClinical oral investigations2017
Removal of simulated biofilm: an evaluation of the effect on root surfaces roughness after scaling.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-surgical periodontal therapy with and without hyaluronic acid gel in type 2 diabetic stage-II periodontitis patients: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Injectable platelet-rich fibrin with vitamin C as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal therapy in the treatment of stage-II periodontitis: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Damage of irradiated teeth by ultrasonic scaling: an in vitro study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Bilateral interdental cleaning after powered toothbrushing: an in vitro comparison of interdental brushes and elastomeric interdental picks.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Modeling In Vitro Biofilm-Calculus Formation for Assessing Periodontal Instrumentation and the Forces Applied.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- In-vitro effect of different instrumentations on adhesion of a multispecies bacterial mixture to root surfaces and the subsequent response of pulpal cells.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- In-vitro simulation methods for mechanical plaque removal: a systematic scoping review of current techniques and future directions.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- A Sex-Specific Evaluation of Dental Students' Ability to Perform Subgingival Debridement: Randomized Trial.JMIR medical education · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a systematic digitized training program on the effectivity of subgingival instrumentation with curettes and sonic scalers in vitro.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
- Influence of motivation and a new digitized training program on undergraduate dental students during preclinical scaling training.BMC oral health · 2020Article
- Comparison of Root Surface Wear and Roughness Resulted from Different Ultrasonic Scalers and Polishing Devices Applied on Human Teeth: An In-Vitro Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- How to train periodontal endoscopy? Results of a pilot study removing simulated hard deposits in vitro.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Article
- Effect of total sonicated Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans fragments on gingival stem/progenitor cells.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2018Article
- Comparative evaluation of manual scaling and root planing with or without magnification loupes using scanning electron microscope: A pilot study.Journal of Indian Society of PeriodontologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the development of less invasive devices, a debate exists about the benefits and risks of hand versus powered root surface instrumentation used in supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). The aim of the in vitro study was to differentially compare plaque removal efficacy and root surface roughening of newly developed sonic, ultrasonic scaler, and curettes in the hands of experienced versus less experienced operators. MATERIALS AND
methodsSonic (AIR), ultrasonic devices (TIG), and double-gracey curettes (GRA) were utilized by seven experienced (EO) and four less experienced operators (LO) for root surface instrumentation of standardized plastic teeth on manikins' heads in a randomized sequence. The proportion of residual simulated plaque (RSP area in %) was planimetrically assessed, and the average root surface roughness produced (Ra and ∆Ra in μm) was measured by a precision profilometer.
resultsThe uninstrumented root surfaces showed a Ra of (median (Q25/Q75)) 1.00 μm (0.83/1.16). Following instrumentation, EO left significantly less RSP than LO regardless of the used instruments (20.00 % (10.00/34.00) vs. 26.00 % (12.00/44.00) p < 0.001), whereas the ∆Ra values (0.29 μm (-0.04/0.96) vs. 0.35 μm (-0.04/1.01), p = 0.237) failed to show significant differences. The surface roughness was higher with GRA followed by AIR then TIG regardless of operators' experience (p < 0.001).
conclusionWithin the limits of the present study, the sonic device was most efficient in plaque removal, while the ultrasonic device produced the least surface roughness. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All three tested instruments seem effective in the mechanical root debridement during SPT, whereat the ultrasonic device show the smoothest root surface of all.
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.