Subgingival polishing with a teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth - (I) Residual deposits

Background: Recent studies have shown that endotoxins are located on the pe riodontally diseased root cementum and not within it. These studies led to the suggestion that the root surface could be treated less aggressively dur ing periodontal therapy. Thus, we designed a teffon-tubed sonic scaler inse rt for subgingival polishing. It was our objective to assess to which exten t this new instrument is capable of removing bacterial deposits in deep poc kets in comparison with conventional scaling instruments. Method: We compared the extent to which plaque and calculus could be remove d with a curette, a conventional sonic and ultrasonic scaler insert, a Per- io-tor insert, and a teflon-tubed sonic scaler insert. 84 teeth requiring e xtraction had been treated with one of these instruments. After extraction, the teeth were stained with Malachite green, and the following areas were assessed: area lacking plaque and calculus, calculus, and area only covered with plaque. For statistical comparison, nonparametric analyses were carri ed out. Results: Curettes and conventional ultrasonic and sonic-scaler inserts had more area lacking plaque and calculus (97.5%, 92.2%, 92.1%) than did the Pe r-io-tor (80.1%) or the teflon-coated sonic scaler insert (84.4%). A simila r effectivity sequence was observed for residual soft deposits (curette: 1. 9%, ultrasonic scaler: 6.1%, sonic scaler: 5.4%, teflon-coated sonic scaler : 5.1% and Per-io-tor: 9.5%). Conclusions: The Per-io-tor and the teflon-coated sonic scaler insert seem to be suitable for the removal of soft deposits on the root surface, but no t for the removal of calculus.