ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2024
In-Vitro Measurement of Forces During Debridement with a Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Periodontal Scaler.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modeling In Vitro Biofilm-Calculus Formation for Assessing Periodontal Instrumentation and the Forces Applied.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated the magnitude, direction, and temporal aspects of the force applied during instrumentation with a piezoelectric ultrasonic periodontal scaler, compared this force with recommendations in the literature, and assessed the influence of the profession (dentist or dental hygienist) and calculus hardness. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe force applied by ten dental hygienists and six dentists during debridement of comparatively soft and hard artificial dental calculus with a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler was recorded in-vitro. The total force and its components in three axes were statistically analysed.
resultsDuring debridement of soft artificial dental calculus, the mean total force applied by dental hygienists was 0.34 N (± 0.18 N, range: 0.13 N to 0.59 N) and by dentists 0.28 N (± 0.33 N, range: 0.06 N to 0.95 N), and the total force exceeded 0.5 N approximately 23% and 14% of the time for dental hygienists and dentists, respectively. During debridement of hard artificial dental calculus, the mean total force applied by dental hygienists was 0.63 N (± 0.40 N, range: 0.28 N to 1.64 N) and by dentists 0.57 N (± 0.17 N, range: 0.34 N to 0.76 N); the total force exceeded 0.5 N more than half of the time for both professions. On average, dental hygienists applied 1.85x (p = 0.04) and dentists 2.04x (p = 0.06) higher force on hard than on soft artificial calculus. However, dental hygienists and dentists used similar forces during the debridement of both hard (p = 1.00) and soft (p = 0.26) calculus.
conclusionThe force applied during the debridement of hard artificial dental calculus was statistically significantly higher than during the debridement of soft artificial dental calculus. No statistically significant difference between dentists and dental hygienists was found. The force applied by both groups on soft and hard artificial dental calculus frequently exceeded recommended values.
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.