Total calculus removal: an attainable objective?

The primary purpose of this study was to determine if two sessions of scaling and root planing, one using a "closed" approach and the other using an "open" approach, would remove all calculus from teeth with severe periodontal disease. Fourteen teeth (8 single-rooted, 6 multi-rooted) were treated by closed scaling and root planing with an ultrasonic instrument, and 17 others (10 single-rooted, 7 multi-rooted) were treated with hand instruments. After a healing period of 4 to 8 weeks, anesthesia was secured, periodontal flaps were raised, and the teeth were treated a second time using the same instrumentation as before. The teeth were then extracted and prepared for light microscopic evaluation. Twelve of the 14 teeth treated by ultrasonics and 12 of the 17 treated by hand instruments retained calculus. The two types of instruments had similar scores in the treatment of proximal root surfaces, furcal walls, and furcal summits. Hand instrumentation appeared to be more effective than ultrasonics in removing cementum from proximal surfaces, although this is not based on a formal statistical comparison of the two methods. Neither instrument was effective in removing cementum from the furcal walls or summits. Five randomly selected blocks containing remaining root structure were deparaffinized and prepared for scanning electron microscopy. One hand-instrumented specimen, which had not shown calculus with light microscopy, displayed calculus at the SEM level. All five specimens displayed residual calculus at either the light microscope, the SEM level, or both. The results of this study indicate that complete removal of calculus from a periodontally diseases root surfaces is rare.

[1]  T J O'Leary,et al.  The effectiveness of in vivo root planing in removing bacterial endotoxin from the roots of periodontally involved teeth. , 1978, Journal of periodontology.

[2]  A Boyde,et al.  Tooth surfaces treated in situ with periodontal instruments. Scanning electron microscopic studies , 1972, British Dental Journal.

[3]  P. Robertson,et al.  Calculus removal by scaling/root planing with and without surgical access. , 1987, Journal of periodontology.

[4]  R. Davies,et al.  The removal of root surface deposits. , 1985, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[5]  T. O'Leary,et al.  The effect of retained subgingival calculus on healing after flap surgery. , 1988, Journal of periodontology.

[6]  T. O'Leary,et al.  The effectiveness of hand versus ultrasonic instrumentation in open flap root planing. , 1984, Journal of periodontology.

[7]  J. S. Garrett Root planing: a perspective. , 1977, Journal of periodontology.

[8]  S. Thornton,et al.  Comparison of ultrasonic to hand instruments in the removal of subgingival plaque. , 1982, Journal of periodontology.

[9]  R. Caffesse,et al.  Scaling and root planing with and without periodontal flap surgery. , 1986, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[10]  T J O'Leary,et al.  The impact of research on scaling and root planing. , 1986, Journal of periodontology.

[11]  D. M. Smith,et al.  The limits of subgingival scaling. , 1981, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[12]  R. Gellin,et al.  The Effectiveness of the Titan‐S Sonic Sealer Versus Curettes in the Removal of Subgingival Calculus , 1986 .

[13]  M. Ash,et al.  The effectiveness of subgingival scaling and root planing in calculus removal. , 1981, Journal of periodontology.