Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38503814›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2024

Effects of a new magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler and a traditional piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler on root surfaces and patient complaints.

Xiaoqing You, Xiaohong Wu, Shiwei Chen

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiaoqing You *Fujian Biological Materials Engineering and Technology Center of Stomatology, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, 246 Yangqiao Zhong Rd, Fuzhou, 350002, Fujian, China.
Xiaohong Wu *Fujian Biological Materials Engineering and Technology Center of Stomatology, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, 246 Yangqiao Zhong Rd, Fuzhou, 350002, Fujian, China.
Shiwei ChenFujian Biological Materials Engineering and Technology Center of Stomatology, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, 246 Yangqiao Zhong Rd, Fuzhou, 350002, Fujian, China. chen305192803@outlook.com.
Fujian Medical University · CN

Funding

Educational Research Project for Young and Middle-aged Teachers of Fujian Provincial Department of Education N0. JAT20015General Program of Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province N0. 2022J01765Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program for students of Fujian Medical University No. C20174the Educational Research Project for Young and Middle-aged Teachers of Fujian Provincial Department of Education No. JAT210101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tooth wear and pain are the primary concerns of patients undergoing periodontal scaling. The aims of this study were to compare the effects of a new magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler and a traditional piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler on tooth surface roughness and calculus removal and to determine their impacts on patient discomfort during supragingival cleaning. This article had two parts: an in vitro study and a clinical study. In the in vitro study, thirty teeth with subgingival calculus were randomly assigned to two scaling treatment groups: magnetostrictive scalers (n = 15) and piezoelectric scalers (n = 15). Surface roughness measurements were taken at baseline and after scaling, and the root samples were visualised by SEM after scaling. Additionally, a single-centre randomised split-mouth clinical trial was conducted. Eighty-five participants diagnosed with chronic gingivitis or periodontitis were randomly assigned to receive supragingival scaling. The magnetostrictive scaler was used in half of the mouths (n = 85), and the piezoelectric scaler was used in the other half of the mouths (n = 85). Data on pain, noise, and vibration were collected using a VAS questionnaire, and the operating time was recorded. In both in vitro and clinical studies, magnetostrictive scalers were reported to be more effective than piezoelectric scalers in removing dental deposits (P < 0.05). Additionally, the root surface after scaling with the magnetostrictive scaler was smoother than that after scaling with the piezoelectric scaler in the in vitro study (P = 0.02). SEM examination also revealed that fewer dental materials were lost after instrumentation with the magnetostrictive scaler than after instrumentation with the piezoelectric scaler. Piezoelectric scalers caused less discomfort to patients in terms of pain, noise, and vibration than magnetostrictive scalers (P < 0.05). According to this clinical study, the magnetostrictive scaler caused more discomfort during supragingival scaling than the piezoelectric scaler. Moreover, the magnetostrictive scaler was also more efficient and produced a smoother root surface with less material loss after scaling than the piezoelectric scaler, as demonstrated in the in vitro study.

Indexed as

CalculiToothUltrasonic TherapyHumansPainTooth RootUltrasonicsMagnetostrictionOral hygienePeriodontal diseasePiezoelectric ceramicsScalingUltrasonic therapyUltrasonic treatment

Identifiers

PMID38503814
PMCPMC10951197
OpenAlexW4392948771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.