ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2025
Differences Between Two Devices With Function of Periopolishing and Piezoelectric Scaler: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pain Perception and Psychoemotional Responses Across Different Scaling Technologies: A Comparative Pilot Clinical Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Central adiposity indices and inflammatory markers mediate the association between life's crucial 9 and periodontitis in US adults.Lipids in health and disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dental procedures often cause anxiety and apprehension in patients due to potential discomfort and pain. Understanding patient sensitivity and comfort is critical to providing effective dental care. The aim of this study was to compare patient and operator comfort between two devices with the function of periopolishing and piezoelectric scaler during guided biofilm therapy (GBT) sessions. A randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 20 patients and operators. Primary outcomes, including pain, sensitivity, and operator comfort, were assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS), while periodontal indices served as secondary outcomes. The results showed comparable levels of patient and operator comfort between the two devices, with higher airflow comfort reported for the Mectron Combi Touch and higher ultrasonic handpiece comfort showed for the EMS Prophylaxis Master. Both devices effectively reduced periodontal parameters without significant differences. These results indicate that both Mectron Combi Touch and EMS Prophylaxis Master offer viable options for efficient and patient-friendly periodontal treatment. The study provides valuable insights for improving patient experience and treatment outcomes in the dental office. Considerations for device selection based on clinical needs and patient comfort are discussed, as well as future perspectives for advancing preventive dental care. This research contributes to the ongoing topic of improving dental procedures to ensure optimal patient satisfaction and oral health outcomes.
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.