You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/16028
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Fabio Andre-
dc.contributor.authorPochapski, Marcia Thais-
dc.contributor.authorLeal, Paola Cristina-
dc.contributor.authorGimenes-Sakima, Patricia Panizzi-
dc.contributor.authorMarcantonio, Elcio-
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-20T13:45:32Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T16:59:33Z-
dc.date.available2014-05-20T13:45:32Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T16:59:33Z-
dc.date.issued2008-06-01-
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0167-3-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Investigations. Heidelberg: Springer Heidelberg, v. 12, n. 2, p. 143-150, 2008.-
dc.identifier.issn1432-6981-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/16028-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/16028-
dc.description.abstractThe present study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of different ultrasonic instruments on the root surface. Fourteen patients with 35 single root teeth designated for extraction were recruited to the present study. Teeth were assigned to four experimental groups: group 1, piezoelectric ultrasonic device; group 2, magnetostrictive ultrasonic device; group 3, hand instrumentation; and group 4, untreated teeth (control). After instrumentation, the teeth were extracted and the presence of residual deposits (roughness and root surfaces characteristics) were analyzed. The results showed that residual deposits were similar in all tested groups: piezoelectric, 8.7%; magnetostrictive, 9.7%; hand instrumentation, 11.1% and control, 76.4%. There were statistically significant differences between control and all the experimental groups (p < 0.0001). With respect to roughness parameters evaluation, R(a) and R(z) of the roots treated with the different instruments showed a similar pattern (p > 0.05), but for R(t) and R(y), a significant difference was observed (p < 0.05) among hand instrumentation and ultrasonic devices. SEM analysis revealed a similar root surface pattern for the ultrasonic devices, but curettes showed many instrumental scratches, deep gouges, and a relatively large amount of dentin was removed. Within the limits of the study, although the instruments produced similar results, root surfaces instrumentated with curettes were rougher and had more root surface tissue removed than with the ultrasonic device.en
dc.format.extent143-150-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherSpringer Heidelberg-
dc.sourceWeb of Science-
dc.subjectdental scalingen
dc.subjectroot planningen
dc.subjectdental instrumentsen
dc.subjectdental calculusen
dc.subjectdental plaqueen
dc.titleComparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surface in vivoen
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Dept Periodont, Sch Dent, Ponta Grossa, Parana, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUniv São Paulo, Dept Periodont, Sch Dent, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUnespUniv São Paulo, Dept Periodont, Sch Dent, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00784-007-0167-3-
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000255535900007-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Investigations-
Appears in Collections:Artigos, TCCs, Teses e Dissertações da Unesp

There are no files associated with this item.
 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.