Clinical oral investigations · 2019
How to train periodontal endoscopy? Results of a pilot study removing simulated hard deposits in vitro.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Graetz Christian, Schorr Susanne, Christofzik David, Dörfer Christof E, Sälzer Sonja
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: There is uncertainty regarding the benefits of periodontal endoscopy (PE) for subgingival instrumentation. Moreover, the influence of operators' experience and training with such a device on treatment results is unclear. Therefore, we compared in an in vitro study the use of PE for scaling and root planing (SRP) with the conventional non-surgical therapy, hypothesizing that using a PE allows to remove more simulated hard deposits than without (nPE), influenced by the operators' experience and training.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sonic device and Gracey curettes were utilized by 11 operators (six dentists, five dental hygienists) in periodontitis manikins heads. The time required for treatment and the proportion of removed simulated hard deposits by SRP were measured.
RESULTS: Using the PE led to a significant difference in removal of simulated hard deposits (%) (mean ± SD) irrespective of operators' experience (PE 90.78 ± 12.10% (range 58.80-100%); nPE 79.98 ± 22.15% (range 38.10-100%, p < 0.001)), sub-analyses for different tooth types demonstrated a significant difference in favor of PE for front teeth (p < 0.001) and in the upper jaw independent of the tooth type (p < 0.001). Comparison of treatment times for two quadrants with and without PE showed a significantly longer treatment time with PE (∆22.27 ± 17.98 mins, p <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the present pilot study, the use of PE led to more removal of simulated hard deposits but was concomitantly related to more time and financial effort. Using PE was most beneficial in the front area.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PE may provide additional benefits for the removal of hard deposits compared to traditional SRP. The beneficial effect of PE seems not to be influenced by operators experience nor by pocket probing depth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sonic device and Gracey curettes were utilized by 11 operators (six dentists, five dental hygienists) in periodontitis manikins heads. The time required for treatment and the proportion of removed simulated hard deposits by SRP were measured.
RESULTS: Using the PE led to a significant difference in removal of simulated hard deposits (%) (mean ± SD) irrespective of operators' experience (PE 90.78 ± 12.10% (range 58.80-100%); nPE 79.98 ± 22.15% (range 38.10-100%, p < 0.001)), sub-analyses for different tooth types demonstrated a significant difference in favor of PE for front teeth (p < 0.001) and in the upper jaw independent of the tooth type (p < 0.001). Comparison of treatment times for two quadrants with and without PE showed a significantly longer treatment time with PE (∆22.27 ± 17.98 mins, p <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the present pilot study, the use of PE led to more removal of simulated hard deposits but was concomitantly related to more time and financial effort. Using PE was most beneficial in the front area.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PE may provide additional benefits for the removal of hard deposits compared to traditional SRP. The beneficial effect of PE seems not to be influenced by operators experience nor by pocket probing depth.