ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2020
A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Adjunctive EDTA and Air-Polishing Powders on Periodontitis-Affected Root Surfaces: A SEM Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- PRP and PRF-Subgroups and Divisions When Used in Dentistry.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2020Article
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of root-shape inserts mounted on a reciprocating handpiece during the procedure of root surface debridement (RSD) on extracted teeth. Three different approaches were compared: ultrasonic scaling, employment of root-shape inserts mounted on a reciprocating handpiece, and a combination of both. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 51 extracted teeth were divided into three groups. The first group was instrumented with an ultrasonic scaler, the second group with flexible root-shape inserts mounted on a reciprocating handpiece (grain size 40, 15, and 4 μm), whereas the final group underwent a combination of both approaches. The time required for the instrumentation was taken. The specimens were subjected to optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and the photographs were evaluated by three examiners who were blinded to the study. The parameters included were: SEM roughness index (SRI) for the roughness calculation, remaining calculus Index (RCI) to evaluate the residual calculus deposits, and loss of tooth substance index (LTSI) to evaluate the loss of tooth substance caused by instrumentation.
resultThe results revealed that the time taken for the instrumentation was on average longer when the root-shape inserts were employed alone, meanwhile the combined approach did not show significant difference in comparison with the ultrasonic scaling. The lower average RCI was obtained with a combined approach. The use of root-shape inserts seems to cause a moderate increase in LTSI, especially in a combined approach, whereas it resulted in a better average SRI.
conclusionThe employment of root-shape inserts seems to be effective in the RSD for its ability to obtain a smooth and calculus-free instrumented surface, especially when used in combination with an ultrasonic scaler, and their use can so represent a valid approach to be tested in further in vivo studies.
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.