Go Green, Go Online to take your course

Earn

5 CE creditsThis course was

written for dental hygienists, dentists,

and assistants.

Effectiveness and Efficiency in Ultrasonic ScalingA Peer-Reviewed Publication Written by Elizabeth (“Betsy”) Reynolds, RDH, MS

This course has been made possible through an unrestricted educational grant. The cost of this CE course is $64.00 for 5 CE credits. Cancellation/Refund Policy: Any participant who is not 100% satisfied with this course can request a full refund by contacting PennWell in writing.

PennWell is an ADA CERP Recognized Provider

PennWell is an ADA CERP recognized provider ADA CERP is a service of the American Dental Association to assist dental professionals in identifying quality providers of continuing dental education. ADA CERP does not approve or endorse individual courses or instructors, nor does it imply acceptance of credit hours by boards of dentistry.Concerns of complaints about a CE provider may be directed to the provider or to ADA CERP at www.ada.org/goto/cerp.

2 www.ineedce.com

Educational ObjectivesUpon completion of this course, the clinician will be able to do the following:1. Understand the importance of biofilm and

calculus removal 2. Identify the advantages of ultrasonic scalers

compared to hand scalers3. Understand the types of power scalers available,

their modes of action, and considerations in selecting a power scaler

4. Be able to determine the clinically appropriate inserts and tips for use in individual cases and the sequence in which these should be used

5. Identify the ergonomic advantages and recent advancements in ultrasonic scalers

6. Understand the types of tips that can be used safely and effectively in implant maintenance, as well as which materials are contraindicated for scaling implants

AbstractThe standard non-surgical treatment for periodontal dis-ease is supra- and subgingival scaling to disrupt and thor-oughly remove biofilm, calculus deposits, periodontal pathogens, and debris. Instrumentation options include hand scalers and ultrasonic scalers. Considerations in the choice of method include efficacy, efficiency, safety, pa-tient comfort, and ergonomics. Ultrasonic devices have enabled clinicians to effectively and efficiently remove supragingival and subgingival hard deposits and biofilm. When selected and used appropriately, they are clinician and patient friendly. Scaling inserts have evolved to in-clude slim, complementary tips which are curved right and left, straight, beavertail, and angulated insert tips; as well as specialty instruments, inserts and tips designed for safe and effective implant care without altering the integrity of implants. Instrumentation strategies used in debriding implants must ensure that the instruments are compatible with the implant surface. Plastic scaling in-struments and plastic-tipped ultrasonic scalers have been found to be safe and effective to use around implants.

The latest generation of ultrasonic scalers offers the ability to thoroughly instrument deep pockets and fur-cation areas, and offers benefits over conventional hand scalers which include improved operator ergonomics and comfort, improved patient comfort, less tooth substance removal and more efficient and effective treatment.

IntroductionPeriodontal disease relies upon the presence of a mature biofilm rich in periodontopathogens, and is evident to varying degrees in the majority of U.S. adults.1 The progression of periodontal disease is highly variable and dependent largely upon the host response, with bacterial

variances between individuals accounting for only 20% of cases progressing.2 Nonetheless, the removal of bac-teria and their byproducts is essential to prevent and halt periodontal disease. Home care oral hygiene measures can be effective in removing supragingival biofilm when properly performed. However, once a mature subgingi-val biofilm has developed, or dental calculus is present, home care is ineffective and clinical care is required. In the absence of clinical intervention, periodontal disease progression in individual patients leads to soft tissue at-tachment loss and bone loss.

The relationship of biofilm, calculus, and periodontal disease Within 48 hours of dental biofilm formation, sufficient numbers of periodontopathic anaerobes are established for the onset of gingivitis. If the biofilm is not disrupted, its maturation will result in a complex subgingival biofilm three to twelve weeks after the biofilm starts to form. The subgingival biofilm is highly structured, and contains mainly gram-negative anaerobes.3 Research has found that a small proportion of these anaerobic species form complexes associated with periodontal disease.4 Mature biofilm both harbors and protects bacteria by envelop-ing them in a well-structured and resistant biofilm. The deepest regions of the biofilm harbor the most periodon-topathogens, and are where the highest levels of bacterial vitality are seen.5

The reversible gingivitis which develops 48 hours after the formation of biofilm will transform to an active process whereby the host responds by releasing antibod-ies, neutrophils, lymphocytes, and macrophages into the adjacent tissue. Interleukin 1 and tumor necrosis factor are cytokines produced by the leukocytes. These inflammatory markers then stimulate the production of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). The production of cytokines, prostaglandins, and chemokines leads to inflammation and bone loss.6

Dental calculus is present in the majority of adults supra- and subgingivally, and is 70%-80% inorganic.7 Calculus formation results from calcification of dental biofilm and exfoliated oral epithelial cells. The mineral ions responsible for this originate in the saliva and ad-ditionally from the crevicular fluid.8 In addition, dental calculus contains bacterial debris interspersed within a mineral deposit of mainly calcium phosphate (Figure 1). Research has found that supragingival calculus also has nonmineralized areas within it containing bacteria.9

Endotoxins are slowly released from dental calculus10 into the adjacent soft tissue, where they may become de-structive to the soft and hard tissues of the periodontium. The disruption and removal of subgingival biofilm and calculus requires clinical intervention, and is typically carried out by non-surgical periodontal treatment.

www.ineedce.com 3

Goals of non-surgical periodontal treatment The overall goals of periodontal treatment are to halt disease progression and to obtain clinical attachment gains. Supra- and subgingival scaling are the standard non-surgical treatment for periodontal disease, and may be supplemented with systemic or local antimicrobial therapy or other adjunctive therapy.11,12,13 The objectives of scaling are to disrupt the dental biofilm and to remove the maximum possible amount of dental biofilm, dental calculus, periodontal bacteria, and debris from the root surfaces and soft tissue. A further objective is that the root surfaces be biocompatibly smooth upon completion of scaling, thereby reducing the risk of recolonization and subgingival biofilm adhesion and retention on biocompat-ible surfaces. (As clarification – root planing is not indi-cated, and is both clinically unnecessary and damaging to the root surface integrity.) Clinically, definitive removal of dental calculus is important. Retained dental calculus provides a distinct raised or rough site for the adhesion of bacteria and for biofilm retention, and will also contain endotoxins. While it has been suggested that removal of dental calculus may not be key in periodontal treatment,14 based upon the potential impact of retained or residual dental calculus this is not justified. As with dental biofilm, the objective is thorough removal (Figure 2).

Supra- and subgingival scaling can be performed with hand instruments or with power scalers. An alternative is a blended procedure combining the use of both hand instruments and power scalers. Considerations in the choice of method include efficacy, efficiency, safety, pa-tient comfort, and ergonomics. The use of hand scalers requires great care to achieve a satisfactory result, and takes a considerable amount of time. It is now generally held that hand scalers and ultrasonic scalers are similar in their effectiveness in removing subgingival biofilm.15 However, standard Gracey curettes are known to be too wide to enter the furcation in more than half of all maxil-lary and mandibular first molars,16 which have furcation entrances as narrow as 0.63 mm wide while the minimum width of the Gracey curettes is 0.76 mm.17 Hand scalers have been found to be ineffective in removing calculus deposits in furcation areas whether an open- or closed-flap technique is used.18 Ultrasonic scalers are considered superior to hand instruments for the treatment of moder-ate and severe furcations.19 The precision thin tips of ul-trasonic scalers are significantly thinner than the working end curettes, enabling them to enter narrow furcation ar-eas. A further difference exists between hand scalers and ultrasonic scalers with respect to their positioning for cal-culus removal (Figure 3). In the case of hand scalers such

CALCULUS• 70%–80% inorganic• Provides a site for biofilm retention and growth• Releases endotoxins

CaPO4

BIOFILM

Bacterial debrisExfoliated oralepithelial cells

Figure 1. Dental Calculus Formation

• Disruption of dental biofilm• Removal of dental biofilm• Removal of dental calculus• Removal of periodontal bacteria and debris• Smooth root surfaces upon completion of scaling

Halt disease progression

Clinical attachment gains

Figure 2. Goals of Non-Surgical Periodontal Treatment

4 www.ineedce.com

as curettes, the scalers must be apical to the deposit prior to its removal, while with ultrasonic scalers the insert is positioned coronal to the deposit20 – resulting in easier application of the instrument and potentially less tissue distension. It has also been found that hand instruments appear to cause more root surface damage than ultrasonic scalers used at a medium power setting.21 Jacobson et al. found that using hand scalers resulted in grooves and cementum removal evident with SEM analysis, while the use of ultrasonic scalers resulted in no detectable changes to the root surface.22 Most recently, lasers have also been used for scaling and root planing procedures. Clinical re-sults using lasers have been variable, and while effective in removing calculus deposits, in vitro testing found the Er:YAG laser to be less efficient than ultrasonic scalers and the lased root surface was found to be structurally altered with the development of a surface microrough-ness after lasing.23

Hand instrumentation requires highly repetitive, intricate, and complex hand movements, which can be wearing and ergonomically unsatisfactory. Ultrasonic de-vices have enabled clinicians to effectively and efficiently remove hard deposits and subgingival biofilm. When se-lected and used appropriately, they are also clinician and patient friendly, and offer ergonomic benefits over hand scaling. Ultrasonic scaling also reduces the time required for thorough scaling compared to hand scaling, increas-ing efficiency for the office by reducing the time patients must sit in the dental chair.

Types of ultrasonic scaling devicesUltrasonic scalers have been in use since the 1950s, when the first stand-alone ultrasonic scalers were introduced. Since then they have been revolutionized with the intro-duction of ergonomically designed devices and tips, mi-crotips, microprocessor controls, and other innovations. Ultrasonic devices are available in the U.S. as magneto-strictive devices and as piezoelectric devices (Figure 4).

These are mechanically distinct in their mode of action and method of use. In the U.S., the best known and most used is the magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler.

Magnetostrictive ultrasonic scalers rely upon an ellipti-cal movement of the ultrasonic tip. The magnetostrictive stack in the insert converts energy from the handpiece into mechanical oscillations that activate the insert tip (Figure 5). The electronic system produces small strokes of the insert that are microscopic and delivers from 25,000 to over 40,000 cycles (strokes) per second at the tip. A second type of magnetostrictive device that is less common (Odontoson) uses a ferrite rod to produce a rotational rather than elliptical movement. Ultrasonic devices are available with closed loops that automatically adjust the tuning for the resonance of each tip, enabling the clinician to successively insert different tips into the handpiece without having to stop and adjust settings each time.

When using magnetostrictive scalers, the insert must be meticulously adapted to all areas of the tooth surface. It is important to note that the most active area of the insert’s tip is the point, followed by the concave face of the insert, then the convex back, with the lateral surfaces

Figure 4

4a. Magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler

4b. Piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler

Minimum width of tips

Slim inserts available

Positioning of tips

Deposit removal in furcations

Lavage

Patient comfort

Root surface damage

Ergonomics

Bacterial aerosol

Hand Scalers

0.76 mm

Yes - less slim than ultrasonic slim tips

Apical to the deposit

Less effective

None

Varies with clinical skill, tips used

More than with ultrasonic scalers

More wearing, fatigue

If irrigation is used

Ultrasonic Scalers

0.55 mm

Yes

Coronal to the deposit

More effective

Low to moderate

Varies with clinical skill, tips used

Less than with hand scalers

Less wearing, fatigue

Yes, minimize

Figure 3. Comparison of Hand Scalers and Ultrasonic Scalers

Shaft insert portionGrip

Tip

www.ineedce.com 5

being the least active. The point of the insert should never be directed into the tooth surface, and care should be taken that the face of the insert is not adapted perpendicular to the tooth’s surface. The majority of scaling will be accom-plished with the back and lateral surfaces of the insert. The length of the active tip area for scaling depends upon the energy output and frequency at which the ultrasonic unit operates. Magnetostrictive ultrasonic scalers operate at a frequency ranging from 18 to 45 kHz, typically at 25 or 30 kHz. At a frequency of 25 kHz, the terminal 4.3 mm of the tip is active, at 30 kHz 4.2 mm of the tip is active (Figure 6, 7). A higher frequency of 50 kHz results in an active area in the terminal 2.3 mm of the tip.24 The inserts should be activated prior to insertion into the pockets and used with a continual stroking motion in a horizontal, ver-tical, or oblique manner – offering the clinician fl exibility and choice. It is important to keep the tip moving and to maintain the integrity of the contact between the active area of the tip and the tooth surface for optimal results. Other important factors in tip use are the amount of lateral force applied – which should be light – and the angulations of the tips themselves to ensure that they are maintained against the tooth surface. Magnetostrictive technology

results in all surfaces of the insert being active. Since all four surfaces of the inserts are active and used for scaling, magnetostrictive ultrasonic technology offers more fl ex-ibility in adaptation to the tooth surface as well as ease of use and more fl exibility in technique.

The thoroughness with which scaling devices are used is a key attribute for success. If the insert is applied incor-rectly to remove biofi lm and calculus, the tooth surface may be damaged. As with hand instruments, if inserts are not used properly the removal of biofi lm and calculus will not be defi nitive and will compromise the clinical re-sults and the achievement of the goals of therapy. Studies have shown that in comparing a sonic instrument (Perio-sonic), magnetostrictive ultrasonic (Cavitron®, Slimline inserts), and hand curettes that all three were effective in disrupting biofi lm and in removing biofi lm and calculus deposits. It was found that use of the magnetostrictive ul-trasonic scaler resulted in the least tooth substance loss.25

It is well recognized that residual calculus is diffi cult to detect, with false negatives being commonplace – one study estimated that 77% of surfaces with residual calcu-lus had been scored as calculus-free.26 Regardless of the type of instrumentation used, this can occur and is also dependant upon individual clinical expertise. To ensure that calculus is removed and that it is not burnished, it is important to select appropriate tips and to use the correct power setting based on patient need. Magnetostrictive ul-trasonic units are available that are designed to defi nitively remove calculus at low to moderate power settings, and some incorporate a power booster which can momentarily increase the power by up to 25% without further altering the device’s settings. These features result in thorough re-

Figure 7. Ultrasonic Insert Design and Active Tip Terminal

Magnetostrictive Movement

Figure 5. Magnetostrictive Ultrasonic Insert

Stack movement results in lengthening and shortening of the insert, and an ellipti-cal pattern movement of the active tip.

Frequency

25 kHz

30 kHz

50 kHz

Active Tip

Terminal 4.3 mm

Terminal 4.2 mm

Terminal 2.3 mm

Figure 6. Active Tip Area and Ultrasonic Scaler Frequency

6 www.ineedce.com

moval of biofi lm and calculus deposits, while increasing patient comfort and ergonomics for the clinician.

Piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers rely upon linear move-ment. The piezoelectric device uses aligned ceramic discs to produce the straight micromovements of the tip through alternating expansion and compression of the ceramic discs when electricity fl ows over the surfaces of the crystal (Figure 8). Piezoelectric ultrasonic units oper-ate at a frequency ranging from 25 to 50 kHz. Given the linear fashion in which the tip moves, with piezoelectric devices the tip’s two lateral surfaces are most active. If adaptation to the tooth’s surface is incorrect the tip will sound different against the tooth, letting the clinician know that the tip adaptation needs to be altered. Deposit removal should be accomplished by utilizing the lateral surfaces of a piezoelectric insert. Clinicians must develop defi nitive techniques to maximize effi ciency. The tip must be held lateral to the tooth surface, which is often achieved by pivoting the wrist. While clinical results are

similar to those obtained with the use of magnetostrictive devices, the limitations of active surfaces afforded by a piezoelectric scaler make it a much more technique-sen-sitive device. Without successful technique, the clinical outcome of piezoelectric scaling may be compromised – potentially resulting in root surface damage and incom-plete deposit removal. In the same vein, clinicians using magnetostrictive units should take care not to limit their instrumentation to the instrument’s lateral surfaces.

Comparison of Magnetostrictive and Piezoelectric Ultrasonic UnitsThe use of either magnetostrictive or piezoelectric ultra-sonics requires great care and an overlapping movement around the whole of the root surface to ensure biofi lm and calculus removal. One in vitro study comparing ultrasonic scalers and hand curettes found while the piezoelectric device resulted in slightly faster instrumen-tation compared to the magnetostrictive device, both were more effi cient than hand curettes. In measuring the tooth surface roughness (Ra), however, the tooth surface was smoothest after use of the magnetostrictive device and roughest following use of the piezoelectric device. In comparing all three instrumentation methods, the hand curette produced the smoothest surface but the most tooth substance loss as measured by SEMs, and the mag-netostrictive produced the least tooth substance loss.27 The effi cacy of calculus removal from a root surface was found to be the same with all three methods.

In comparing magnetostrictive and piezoelectric devices, it has been suggested that piezoelectric devices may be more comfortable for patients28 due to their lin-ear rather than elliptical movement. However, for both devices the adaptation of tips at the correct angle and

Crystal action of piezo results in a lateral movement of the active tip.

Piezoelectric Movement

Figure 8. Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Insert

Figure 9. Comparison of Magnetostrictive and Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Units

Mechanism

Tip Movement

Active Surfaces

Positioning of Tips

Slim Inserts Available

Inserts that Mimic Perio Probe

Effective Calculus Removal

Coolant/Lavage Volume

Patient Comfort

Technique Sensitive

Learning Curve

Flexibility of Technique

Magnetostrictive Units

Metal stack or ferrite rod

Elliptical

Back, face, and lateral (4)

Flexible

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low to high, directional with some inserts

Varies with clinical skill, tips used

+

+

+++

Piezoelectric Units

Aligned ceramic discs

Linear

Lateral (2)

Must be lateral to surface

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low to moderate

Varies with clinical skill, tips used

+++

+++

+

www.ineedce.com 7

keeping the tip in motion when against the tooth helps prevent discomfort. In this regard, adaptation is more versatile with the magnetostrictive ultrasonic inserts, which are active on four rather than two surfaces (Figure 9). Similarly, it is important to use only a very light grasp and pressure. One study compared pain perception in patients treated with either a magnetostrictive ultrason-ic unit (Dentsply) or a piezoelectric unit (Vector). The patients’ perception of pain was similar during and after treatment, irrespective of the ultrasonic unit used.29 It should be noted that pain may be associated with tissue distension/manipulation or dentinal hypersensitivity rather than with the movement of ultrasonic tips. Tissue distension can be minimized through careful selection of tips and technique (Figure 10). Where unavoidable, the use of locally delivered topical anesthetics (Oraqix, Dentsply) or local anesthetics may be necessary, and peri-operative use of desensitizing agents helps relieve hypersensitivity during treatment.

The cavitational effect of ultrasonic devices aids biofilm removal,30 and the acoustic effects of the water lavage assist in the removal of calculus deposits. Simi-larly, the lavage obtained from power-driven scalers’ water/fluid coolant provides for continual flushing and is believed to be of therapeutic benefit.31 While lavage is considered beneficial, a balance is desirable between no lavage and lavage that is copious and non-directional. With overzealous lavage, the potential for patient gagging and patient discomfort increases and a longer treatment time is required as the amount of suctioning necessary increases. This may result in the

clinician having to stop while suction is used to evacuate the water or chemotherapeutic used for lavage. Gener-ally, piezoelectric ultrasonic units use less water than magnetostrictive ultrasonic units. To decrease the fluid necessary for proper lavage production, innovations in magnetostrictive insert designs have allowed for a more focused spray with minimal fluid volume. It is possible to use a focused spray or drip of water delivered through the insert and tip itself – enabling better visibility, more directional control, increased patient comfort and a decreased need for suction while still providing the beneficial effects of lavage.

Ultrasonic tip and insert designs Originally, ultrasonic tips were available only with ex-tremely limited design options. By the 1990s clinicians and manufacturers recognized the clinical limitations of the bulky tip options on the market and a line of magne-tostrictive inserts designed to improve subgingival and furcation access was introduced. Slim tip inserts are de-signed to be approximately 30% slimmer than standard inserts. The slimmer profile of the revised tips not only resulted in improved access – in particular to the depths of pockets greater than 4 mm depth – but also provided improved patient comfort by reducing tissue manipula-tion and distension.

In one study in the early 1990s, hand instruments failed to adequately reach the base of deep pockets on 75% of root surfaces, primarily due to the impediments imposed by pocket morphology,32 yet the base of deep pockets is exactly where higher levels of periodontal pathogens are found.33 Slim tips available for both magne-tostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic units are designed to reach into deep pockets effectively and safely. They are able to improve pocket access by 1 mm over hand instrumentation, and to reach the base of 86% of pockets 3 to 6 mm deep.34 Slim tips designed to mimic the ends of periodontal probes enable easier insertion and improved tactility. This enables detection of remaining or residual calculus, saving time by decreasing instrument exchange during treatment.

When compared to the original cumbersome tip de-signs, the slimmer inserts decrease the amount of tooth surface that is lost to instrumentation. In one study, slim scaler tips were found to produce less substance loss for both magnetostrictive slim tips (Slimline) and

Width (in microns)

Depth (in microns)

Volume (in cubic microns)

Slim Tips (MR unit)

254.4

6.3

22.5

Slim Tips (PZE unit)

352

12.1

56.4

Figure 11. Dentin Loss Using Slim Tips: MR and PZE

Figure 10. Slim Tip Insert Provides Ease of Access Into Pocket and Minimizes Tissue Distension

8 www.ineedce.com

piezoelectric slim tips (Perioprobe). In comparing the slim scaler tips of both types of devices, dentin loss was assessed using laser profilometry for depth, width, and volume of defects. The magnetostrictive device resulted in less gouging than the piezoelectric device, with mean changes in the dentin of 254.4 mi-crons, 6.3 microns and 22.5 cubic microns for width, depth and volume versus 352.0 microns, 12.1 microns and 56.4 cubic microns respectively (Figure 11). It was also found that for both devices, changing the force used from 0.3N to 0.7N increased the substance loss twofold,35 underscoring the importance of using a light to moderate instrumentation force.

Flemmig et al. studied slim inserts using a piezo-electric ultrasonic scaler and compared instrumentation using varying angulations, lateral forces, various power settings, and instrumentation time. It was found that lateral force most influenced the total amount of root substance loss, while tip angulation had the most effect on the depth of the defect, with the greatest defect depth and volume loss occurring when the angulation of in-strumentation measured was 45 degrees with 2N lateral force applied. The study concluded that “to prevent severe root damage it is crucial to use the assessed scaler at a tip angulation of close to 0 degrees”.36 In a separate study assessing root substance loss when slim tips were used in magnetostrictive ultrasonic units, Flemmig et al. again found that the greatest influence on the volume of tooth surface lost to improper instrumentation was the lateral force applied. Angulations of 0, 45, and 90 degrees were used. Unlike the results in the piezoelec-tric study, severe root damage was not evident when the angulation was 45 degrees, 0.5N lateral force, and the power was set at up to a medium setting. This study concluded that “the efficacy of the assessed magneto-strictive ultrasonic scaler may be adapted to the various clinical needs by adjusting the lateral force, tip angula-tion, and power setting.”37

As ultrasonics have evolved, new designs in straight and curved tips have also included complementary designs reflecting the site-specific benefits of Gracey curettes (Figure 12). By using both right and left inserts in deeper pockets (>4 mm deep) the full circumference of the root, complex root anatomy and furcations can be more easily and properly instrumented (Figure 13). Right and left tip inserts are designed to adapt to the root surface and furcation areas for optimal results, with each of these used in specific areas of the mouth and teeth – similar to Gracey curettes. When entering the furcation, rotating the insert enables the tip to reach the roof of the furcation (Figure 14).

The importance of superior access and adaptation cannot be underestimated in deep pockets or furcations. Furcation involvement is a leading cause of periodon-tally-induced tooth loss, and periodontal treatment failure for molars with furcation involvement is more than double the rate of treatment failure for molars with no furcation involvement over an eight-year period.38 At their narrowest point, the roof of furcations can be narrower than the width of hand instruments, making them inaccessible or extremely difficult to instrument.

Other insert tips include diamond-coated ultrasonic tips. Some manufacturers have designed and advocate diamond-coated tips for non-surgical scaling. Other man-ufacturers advocate these tips specifically for difficult-to-remove calculus during open-flap procedures, and not for use with non-surgical scaling. Incorrect use of diamond-coated ultrasonic tips can lead to tooth substance loss and soft tissue damage. Teflon-coated tips have been tested

Figure 12. Standard diameter insert; slim tip curved, left and right inserts

Left Inserts• Upper Right Buccal/Labial• Upper Left Palatal• Lower Left Buccal/Labial• Lower Right Lingual

Right Inserts• Upper Right Palatal• Upper Left Buccal/Labial • Lower Left Lingual• Lower Right Buccal/Labial

Figure 14. Aspects for Use: Right and Left Inserts

Figure 13. Advantages of Curved Left and Right Ultrasonic Inserts

• Easier instrumentation of deeper pockets• Superior adaptation to root morphology• Slim tips are slimmer than narrowest furcation areas• Proper instrumentation of: • Furcations • Full circumference of roots• Ergonomically designed

www.ineedce.com 9

and, while effective in disrupting and removing biofilm, were found to be less effective in removing calculus than conventional ultrasonic tips.39

Instrumentation sequence Just as with hand instruments, different ultrasonic in-serts are designed for specific tasks (Figure 15). Standard ultrasonic inserts are designed for moderate to heavy deposit removal, and slim inserts are designed for light deposit removal. Standard inserts are not intended for use in deep pockets nor are they designed for root adaptation in deep pockets, and should not be regarded as a univer-sal insert. Utilizing the appropriate ultrasonic inserts in the correct sequence and at the appropriate power level ensures good clinical results and comfort for the patient and an ergonomic dental hygiene procedure (Figures 16, 17). In general, supragingival calculus deposits should be removed using a standard diameter insert at a low to high power setting as indicated by the patient’s oral condition.

Following use of standard diameter inserts, debridement of pockets 4 mm deep or greater is achieved using slim tipped inserts at a low power setting. Recent magneto-strictive innovations allow use of lower power settings for thorough calculus debridement. The final stage of the scaling procedure is the use of a slim insert at a low power setting to remove the smear layer on the root surface.

Chemotherapeutic irrigants for lavageWater is routinely used in ultrasonic units as a coolant and has a lavage effect in the periodontal pockets. The use of chemotherapeutics with ultrasonic inserts offers lavage and cooling of the insert tip with the additional benefit of placing the chemotherapeutic agent directly into the periodontal pocket during the scaling procedure. Over the years, various chemotherapeutic agents have been used, including chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine and sodium hypochlorite. An early study comparing use of 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate and sterile water for

Standard Inserts• Removal of gross, superficial deposits• Suitable for pockets up to 3 mm deep• Medium-high power setting

Slim Tip Inserts• Debridement of pockets 4 mm and deeper• Lower power setting• +/– hand instrumentation

Slim Tip Inserts• Removal of smear layer from root surface• Low power setting

Figure 16. Sequence for Instrumentation

Figure 15. Insert Tips and Function

Scaler Insert Tip

Standard

Standard triple-bend

Beavertail

Chisel

Perio probe

Slim tips

Straight

Curved and angulated

Curved right and left

Right and left furcation

Fine-tipped

Diamond-coated

Endodontic

Use

Removal of moderate-heavy deposits

Aids access for removal of moderate-heavy deposits

Removal of heavy deposits and stains; anterior teeth

Anterior teeth and premolars; overhanging margins

Shallow and deep pocket deposit removal;

Deeper subgingival lavage; calculus detection

Deposit removal in pockets 4 mm deep and greater

Superficial deposit removal

Aid access and adaptation

Aid access and adaptation to root morphology; furcation areas

Deposit removal in root furcation areas

Aid access for deposit removal in narrow interdental spaces

Depends upon manufacturer -

Gross deposit removal; Surgical or non-surgical access

Removal of overhanging margins

Debridement of canals; removal of fractured endodontic instruments

10 www.ineedce.com

cooling and lavage found that the use of chlorhexidine gluconate was beneficial in reducing clinical probing depth 14 and 28 days post-scaling in pockets that were initially 4–6 mm probing depth, but otherwise produced clinically comparable results to the use of sterile water.40 A second study found that use of chlorhexidine as the coolant resulted in significantly more sites with final probing depths of 1–3 mm, rather than greater than 3 mm with use of water as the coolant. Chlorhexidine coolant was found in this study to have a slight adjunc-tive effect.41 A more recent study found that use of chlorhexidine (Eludril) or sodium hypochlorite as an ir-rigant during scaling and root planing resulted in slightly more effective reduction in plaque index, gingival index, and bleeding upon probing compared to water, with the chlorhexidine being more effective than the sodium hypochlorite. Probing depth reductions, however, were found to be the same as with scaling alone.42 Research has also been conducted using povidone iodine, with the results suggesting that use of 10% povidone iodine as an irrigant at the time of scaling was effective in reducing the total count of periodontopathic bacteria and could be a useful irrigant during therapy.43 It is important to note, however, that use of chemotherapeutics as ir-rigants during ultrasonic scaling is not a substitute for indicated adjunctive antimicrobial treatment such as lo-cally-delivered sustained release agents and has not been shown to have a long-term effect. It has also been found that adjunctive daily use of chemotherapeutic irrigants at home may help reduce inflammation.44 Another prac-tice is to use water as a coolant during primary scaling, followed by use of a chemotherapeutic during the final phase of scaling and desmearing. It has been suggested that the use of chlorhexidine for lavage will reduce the bacterial count in the aerosol associated with ultrasonic scaling; however, studies indicate that the most impor-tant factors in controlling the bacterial aerosol are the use of appropriate suction and an ultrasonic unit utiliz-ing sufficient but modest amounts of coolant delivered directionally to the site.

ErgonomicsThe primary objective of ergonomics is to prevent work-related injuries.45 Dental procedures by their nature expose clinicians to occupational health risks. Dental hygiene procedures use particularly repetitive and physically-demanding movements. Occupational risks specific to delivering dental hygiene care include reduced tactile sensitivity, carpal tunnel syndrome, neck and back injuries, and hand and finger injuries due to muscle fa-tigue.46,47 Scaling involves pinch-grasp, force, vibratory stimuli (if ultrasonic scalers are used), and potentially awkward operator positions that can all result in work-related musculoskeletal injuries.48

Figure 17

Figure 17a. Chisel insert for anterior regions

Figure 17b. Insert with a fine tip for use in areas with narrow access

Figure 17c. Standard diameter insert with triple-bend for removal of moderate-heavy deposits

Figure 17d. Insert that mimics the shape of a peri-odontal probe. Provides for good access into pockets

www.ineedce.com 11

Scaling ergonomically requires a number of con-siderations. Selecting a position for the patient that is comfortable for clinician and patient alike – usu-ally seating the patient at a 45-degree angle – is the first step; this angle should be adjusted as necessary. Similarly, instead of a clinician bending his or her neck and back, it is important to have the patient turn his or her head to the right or left and chin up or down to improve access and visibility to awkward areas (Fig-ure 18). Contrary to instinct, taking the time to have patients do so will save time and result in less fatigue and wear for the clinician without compromising the patient’s comfort or the outcome.

The use of finger rests or fulcrum points helps reduce the thumb pinch force and reduces hand muscle load while utilizing hand instruments.49 Extra-oral and/or hand-on-hand fulcrums are recommended with ultra-sonics to assist with flexibility of movement. Beyond these simple steps, the ergonomics of scaling is mostly influenced by technique and instrument selection.

When hand scaling, it has been demonstrated that dental hygienists reduce their tactile sensitivity in as little as 45 minutes. In contrast, in dental hygienists using ul-trasonic scalers tactile sensitivity increased and vibration was insufficient to reduce tactile sensitivity.50

Handle instrument design influences hand muscle load and pinch force. Lightweight hand instruments with larger-diameter handles have been found to reduce muscle load and pinch force when compared to heavy or thin-handled instruments.51 Handle design also influ-ences selection of ultrasonic inserts and tips. Thicker handle insert designs that incorporate a thick, soft, and dimpled rubber-like handle on the insert are available to improve clinician comfort (Figure 19).

Softer and fatter grips also enable easier rotation and reduce hand fatigue. These handle innovations do not reduce or affect the wrist pivot required to position tips properly during piezoelectric instrumentation. Originally, ultrasonic handpieces were static and did not pivot dur-ing instrumentation. Currently, magnetostrictive units are available with handpieces with swivel features, which reduce discomfort, minimize line pinching, and enable instrument manipulation in areas of difficult access (such as furcations and distal root areas). Recent innovations in magnetostrictive ultrasonic units include the incorporation of a remote frequency wireless foot control. This technol-ogy enables the foot control position more flexibility, since

Figure 18. Patient Seated in Ergonomic Position Figure 19. Insert With Soft, Dimpled Handle

Patient positioningOperator positioningWireless foot controls

Diminished by hand scalingIncreased by ultrasonic scaling

Reduced by use of finger rests/fulcrum pointsReduced by use of lighter handles and insertsReduced by use of fatter inserts and handlesReduced by use of softer grips on inserts Reduced by use of handpieces with swivel features

Neck and Back Strain, Fatigue/Wear

Tactile Sensitivity

Hand Pinch/Grasp/Muscle Load Problems, Discomfort

Wrist Pivot Issues

Figure 20. Ergonomics and Influencers

12 www.ineedce.com

it is not tied to the unit by a cord, and also operate from any side of the base. This offers ease of use and ergonomic benefits since the clinician can position the foot control in the most comfortable position without needing to consider any cords (Figure 20).

Implant care As dental implants continue to evolve into a routine dental procedure, the need for improved scaling instru-ments and devices is increasing. Long-term implant failure due to peri-implantitis occurs commonly in pa-tients with poor oral hygiene and who do not attend pe-riodic maintenance visits.52 Initially, biofilm formation will result in peri-mucositis that is etiologically similar to gingivitis in the natural dentition. If improved oral hygiene procedures and professional maintenance care are not initiated, this will progress to irreversible peri-implantitis – inflammation of the tissue at the implant site, with both soft tissue inflammation and bone loss. Infected implant sites have six times the number of gram-negative anaerobes compared to gram-positive aerobes.53 Meticulous home care and regular clinical maintenance visits are essential to prevent peri-implan-titis. Inflammation of the implant site must be kept to a minimum through soft and hard tissue deposit removal while minimally impacting the surrounding tissues and the implant. This includes the removal of biofilm and calcified deposits at the implant site and on the implant surface. Instrumentation strategies used in cleaning implant(s) must ensure that the instruments used are compatible with the implant surface. Implant damage due to inappropriate instrumentation increases the like-lihood of biofilm formation and maturation,54 anaerobic colonization, and calculus formation.

Metal tip hand scalers, including titanium alloy and stainless steel curettes, and metal ultrasonic tips, have been found in studies to result in implant surface roughness and to increase the surface roughness of ti-

tanium abutments.55, 56, 57 In addition to considerations regarding the use of metal scalers, it has also been found that HA-coated and plasma-coated implants are susceptible to surface alterations during scaling and more so than non-coated implants (Figure 21).58, 59

Plastic scaling instruments have been found to be safe for use around implants and abutments, and not to increase the surface roughness of the titanium.60, 61, 62 Sato et al. concluded that ultrasonic inserts with non-metal tips were suitable for implant maintenance.63 In vitro research using scanning electron microscopy found that use of disposable plastic tips over metal base tips left vir-tually no traces and did not destroy the surface integrity of implants and abutments.64

Systems are available that use metal bases on spe-cialty ultrasonic inserts with a single-use soft plastic tip that fits over the metal base (Cavitron® SofTip™, Dentsply Professional) (Figure 22). These plastic tips are designed to effectively remove biofilm and light cal-culus deposits at implant sites as well as on the implants

Figure 22

Figure 22a. SofTip™ assembly into metal base insert Figure 22b. Implant scaling using a SofTip™ ultrasonic insert

• Plastic-tipped ultrasonic scalers are effective and safe • Effectively remove soft and hard deposits • Found not to increase the surface roughness of titanium implants• Metal tip scalers result in implant surface damage and roughness • Including titanium alloy and stainless steel instruments• Implant surface alterations are influenced by the implant • HA-coated implants are more susceptible to alterations • Plasma-coated implants are more susceptible to alterations

Figure 21. Scaling and Implant Surfaces

www.ineedce.com 13

and superstructures, without damaging the implant’s surface or affecting the integrity of the peri-implant mucosal cuff.

Summary Research over the last two decades has resulted in new insights into periodontal disease. While it is the host re-sponse that is generally responsible for the progression of periodontal disease, gram-negative bacteria found in mature biofilm are essential for periodontal disease to exist and progress. The standard non-surgical treatment for periodontal disease is supra- and subgingival scal-ing to disrupt and thoroughly remove biofilm, calculus deposits, periodontal pathogens, and debris. Instru-mentation options include hand scalers and ultrasonic scalers. Ultrasonic scalers available in the U.S. include both magnetostrictive and piezoelectric units, with the magnetostrictive ultrasonic unit being more frequently used. Scaling inserts have evolved to include slim, com-plimentary curved right and left, straight, beavertail and angulated insert tips as well as specialty instruments, inserts, and tips designed for safe and effective implant care without altering the integrity of implants. The latest generation of ultrasonic scalers offers the ability to thor-oughly instrument deep pockets and furcation areas, and offers benefits over conventional hand scalers including improved operator ergonomics and comfort, improved patient comfort, as well as more efficient and more effective treatment.

AcknowledgementBiofilm image courtesy of Dr. Gary Carr, Pacific End-odontic Research Foundation.

References1 Epidemiology of Periodontal Diseases. J Periodontol 2005;76:1406-1419.2 Page RC, Offenbacher S, et al. Advances in the pathogenesis of periodontitis: Summary

of developments, clinical implications and future directions. Periodontol 2000 1997;14:216-248.

3 Lovegrove, JM Dental plaque revisited: bacteria associated with periodontal disease. J NZ Soc Periodontol 2004;87:7-21.

4 Socransky SS, Haffajee AD, et al. Microbial complexes in subgingival plaque. J Clin Periodontol 1998;25:134-144.

5 Auschill TM, et al. Spatial distribution of vital and dead microorganisms in dental biofilms. Arch Oral Biol 2001;46(5):471-476.

6 Bascone A, Noronha S et al. Tissue destruction in periodontitis: bacteria or cytokines fault? Quintessence Int. 2005;36(4):299-306.

7 Checchi L et al. Tartar and periodontal disease – a cofactor in etiopathogenesis. Dent Cadmos. 1991;59(8):80-84, 87-90, 93-95.

8 White DJ. Dental calculus: recent insights into occurrence, formation, prevention, removal and oral health effects of supragingival and subgingival deposits. Eur J Oral Sci. 1997;105(5 Pt 2):508-522.

9 Tan B, et al. A preliminary investigation into the ultrastructure of dental calculus and associated bacteria. J Clin Periodontol. 2004;31(5):364-369.

10 Checchi L, et al. Tartar and periodontal disease – a cofactor in etiopathogenesis. Dent Cadmos. 1991;59(8):80-84, 87-90, 93-95.

11 Garrett S, Johnson L, Drisko CH, et al. Two multi-center studies evaluating locally delivered

doxycycline hyclate, placebo control, oral hygiene, and scaling and root planing in the treatment of periodontitis. J Periodontol 1999;70(5):490-503.

12 Williams RC, Paquette DN, et al. Treatment of periodontitis by local administration of minocycline microspheres: a controlled trial. J Periodontol 2001;72:1535-1544.

13 Radvar M, Pourtaghi N, Kinane DF. Comparison of 3 periodontal local antibiotic therapies in persistent periodontal pockets. J Periodontol 1996;67(9):860-865.

14 Johnson LR, Stoller NH, Polson A, Harrold CQ, Ryder M, Garrett S. The effects of subgingival calculus on the clinical outcomes of locally-delivered controlled-release doxycycline compared to scaling and root planing. J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29(2):87-91.

15 Position paper: sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontics. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol. 2000;71(11):1792-801.Review.

16 Bower, RC. Furcation morphology relative to periodontal treatment. Furcation entrance architecture. J Periodontol. 1979. 50 (1):23-27.

17 Gehrig JN. Fundamentals of Periodontal Instrumentation & Advanced Root Instrumentation (5th Edition), Ultrasonic and Sonic Instrumentation, p573.

18 Wylam JM, Mealey BL, et al. The clinical effectiveness of open versus closed scaling and root planing on multi-rooted teeth. J Periodontol. 1993;64(11):1023-1028.

19 Position paper: sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontics. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol. 2000;71(11):1792-1801.Review.

20 Gehrig JN. Fundamentals of Periodontal Instrumentation & Advanced Root Instrumentation (5th Edition), Ultrasonic and Sonic Instrumentation, p566.

21 Drisko CL, Cochran DL, et al. Position paper: sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontics. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol. 2000;71(11): 1792-1801.

22 Jacobson L, Blomlof J, Lindskog S. Root surface texture after different scaling modalities. Scand J Dent Res. 1994;102(3):156-160.

23 Aoki A, Miura M, et al. In vitro evaluation of Er:YAG laser scaling of subgingival calculus in comparison with ultrasonic scaling. J Periodontal Res. 2000;35(5):266-277.

24 Gehrig JN. Fundamentals of Periodontal Instrumentation & Advanced Root Instrumentation (5th Edition), Ultrasonic and Sonic Instrumentation, p557.

25 Schmidlin PR, Beuchat M, et al. Tooth substance loss resulting from mechanical, sonic and ultrasonic root instrumentation assessed by liquid scintillation. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28(11):1058-1066.

26 Sherman PR, Hutchens LH Jr, et al. The effectiveness of subgingival scaling and root planning. I. Clinical detection of residual calculus. J Periodontol. 1990;61(1):3-8.

27 Busslinger A, et al. A comparative in vitro study of a magnetostrictive and a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling instrument. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28(7):642-649.

28 Matsuda, SA. Demystifying Piezoelectric Ultrasonics. Dimensions of Dental Hygiene. 2006: 4-11.

29 Kocher T, et al. A new ultrasonic device in maintenance therapy: perception of pain and clinical efficacy. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32(4):425-429.

30 Westfelt E. Rationale of mechanical plaque control. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23(3 Pt 2):263-267.

31 Position paper: sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontics. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol. 2000;71(11):1792-801.Review.

32 Rateitschak-Pluss EM, et al. Non-surgical periodontal treatment: where are the limits? An SEM study. J Clin Periodontol. 1992;19(4):240-244.

33 Socransky SS, Haffajee AD, et al. Microbial complexes in subgingival plaque. J Clin Periodontol. 1998;25:134-144.

34 Shiloah J and Hovious LA. The role of subgingival irrigations in the treatment of periodontitis. J Periodontol. 1993;64 (9): p. 835-843.

35 Jepsen S, et al. Significant influence of scaler tip design on root substance loss resulting from ultrasonic scaling: a laserprofilometric in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol. 2004;31(11):1003-1006.

36 Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, et al. The effect of working parameters on root substance removal using a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler in vitro. J Clin Periodontol. 1998;25(2):158-163.

37 Flemmig TF, et al. Working parameters of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler influencing root substance removal in vitro. J Periodontol. 1998;69(5):547-553.

38 Wang HL, et al. The influence of molar furcation involvement and mobility on future clinical attachment loss. J Periodontol 1994;65(1):25-29.

14 www.ineedce.com

39 Kocher T, Langenbeck M, et al. Subgingival polishing with a teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth. (I) Residual deposits. J Clin Periodontol. 2000;27(4):243-249.

40 Reynolds MA, et al. Clinical effects of simultaneous ultrasonic scaling and subgingival irrigation with chlorhexidine. Mediating influence of periodontal probing depth. J Clin Periodontol. 1992;19(8):595-600.

41 Taggart JA, et al. A clinical and microbiological comparison of the effects of water and 0.02% chlorhexidine as coolants during ultrasonic scaling and root planing. J Clin Periodontol. 1990;17(1):32-37.

42 Kamagate A, et al. Subgingival irrigation combined with scaling and root planing. Results of a study with chlorhexidine and sodium hypochlorite. Odontostomatol Trop. 2005;28(109): 28-32.

43 Hoang T, et al. Povidone-iodine as a periodontal pocket disinfectant. J Periodontal Res. 2003;38(3):311-317.

44 Drisko CH. Nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Periodontol 2000. 2001; 25:77-88.45 Pollack R. Dental office ergonomics: how to reduce stress factors and increase efficiency. J

Can Dent Assoc. 1996;62(6):508-510. 46 Dong H, et al. The effects of finger rest positions on hand muscle load and pinch force in

simulated dental hygiene work. J Dent Educ. 2005;69(4):453-460.47 Dong H, et al. The effects of periodontal instrument handle design on hand muscle load and

pinch force. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(8):1123-1130.48 Michalak-Turcotte C. Controlling dental hygiene work-related musculoskeletal disorders:

the ergonomic process. J Dent Hyg. 2000; 74(1):41-48.49 Dong H, et al. The effects of finger rest positions on hand muscle load and pinch force in

simulated dental hygiene work. J Dent Educ. 2005;69(4):453-460.50 Ryan DL, Darby M, et al. Effects of ultrasonic scaling and hand-activated scaling on tactile

sensitivity in dental hygiene students. J Dent Hyg. 2005;79(1):9. Epub 2005 Jan 1.51 Dong H, et al. The effects of periodontal instrument handle design on hand muscle load

and pinch force. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(8):1123-1130.52 Roos-Jansaker AM, Lindahl C, Renvert H, Revert S. Nine-to fourteen-year follow-

up of implant treatment. Part II: presence of peri-implant lesions. J Clin Periodontol 2006;33(4):290–295.

53 Mombelli A, van Oosten MAC., Schurch E, Lang NP. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol and Immunol 1987;2:145ˆ151.

54 Romeo E, Ghisolfi M, Carmagnola D. Peri-implant disease. Minerva Stomatol 2004;53:215–230.

55 Fox SC, Moriarty JD, Kusy RP. The effects of scaling a titanium implant surface with metal and plastic instruments: an in vitro study. J Periodontol. 1990;61(8):485-490.

56 Homiak AW, et al. Effect of hygiene instrumentation on titanium abutments: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;67(3):364-369.

57 Mengel R, et al. The treatment of uncoated and titanium nitride-coated abutments with different instruments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(2):232-238.

58 Bailey GM, et al. Implant surface alterations from a nonmetallic ultrasonic tip. J West Soc Periodontol Periodontal Abstr. 1998;46(3):69-73.

59 Ramaglia L, et al. Profilometric and standard error of the mean analysis of rough implant surfaces treated with different instrumentations. Implant Dent. 2006;15(1):77-82.

60 Fox SC, Moriarty JD, Kusy RP. The effects of scaling a titanium implant surface with metal and plastic instruments: an in vitro study. J Periodontol. 1990;61(8):485-490.

61 Homiak AW, et al. Effect of hygiene instrumentation on titanium abutments: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;67(3):364-369.

62 Mengel R, et al. The treatment of uncoated and titanium nitride-coated abutments with different instruments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(2):232-238.

63 Sato S, Kishida M, Ito K. The comparative effect of ultrasonic scalers on titanium surfaces: an in vitro study. J Periodontol. 2004;75(9):1269-1273.

64 Mengel R, et al. An in vitro study of the treatment of implant surfaces with different instruments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13(1):91-96.

Author Profile

Elizabeth (“Betsy”) Reynolds, RDH, MSMs. Betsy Reynolds has been a practicing hygien-ist for over twenty years and has been involved with several private practices stressing comprehensive peri-odontal care for patients seeking treatment. Betsy has reinforced her love of the microbiological aspects of periodontal therapy by maintaining teaching positions emphasizing the dental sciences at numerous dental and dental hygiene schools.

Betsy lectures extensively nationally and inter-nationally on subjects that include biologic basis for disease prevention, advanced instrumentation tech-nique, current dental therapeutic modalities, pharma-cological considerations for the dental professional, microbiological and immunological aspects of dental disease, the impact of oral disease on systemic health, evidenced-based decision-making and scientific de-velopments affecting oral health care delivery. Addi-tionally, she has authored numerous articles and book chapters on a variety of oral healthcare concerns. Betsy holds a Master of Science Degree in Oral Biology from the University of Washington.

Living in Boise, Idaho amidst the beauty of the Rocky Mountains and the magnificent untamed wa-ters of the Salmon River, Betsy enjoys spending time outdoors with her husband, Mike, and their two dogs, Lucy and Nellie.

DisclaimerThe author of this course has no commercial ties with the sponsors or the providers of the unrestricted educational grant for this course.

Reader FeedbackWe encourage your comments on this or any PennWell course. For your convenience, an online feedback form is available at www.ineedce.com.

www.ineedce.com 15

Questions

1. The removal of _____ is essential to halt and prevent periodontal disease.a. Bacteriab. Pelliclec. Crevicular fluidd. None of the above

2. Interleukin 1 is a _____ produced by leukocytes.a. Enzymeb. Cytokinec. Prostaglandind. None of the above

3. Dental calculus contains calcified_____.a. Biofilmb. Exfoliated oral epithelial cellsc. Salivad. a and b

4. Subgingival calculus is typically removed by _____.a. Brushingb. Non-surgical periodontal treatmentc. Subgingival irrigationd. None of the above

5. Overall goals of non-surgical periodontal treatment are _____.a. To halt disease progressionb. To reduce bleedingc. To obtain clinical attachment gainsd. a and c

6. Hand scalers have been found to be ineffective in removing calculus in _____.a. Narrow interproximal areasb. Furcation areasc. Mesial root surfacesd. All of the above

7. Furcation entrances can be as narrow as _____.a. 0.45 mmb. 0.63 mmc. 0.75 mmd. 0.92 mm

8. Ultrasonic scalers are consid-ered superior to hand scalers in _____ furcations.a. Allb. Moderate and severec. Widerd. No

9. Ultrasonic scalers are available as _____.a. Magnetostrictive unitsb. Piezoelectric unitsc. Supersonic units d. a and b

10. Elliptical movement is obtained using a _____ ultrasonic device.

a. Piezoelectricb. Piezomechanicalc. Magnetostrictived. a and c

11. Magnetostrictive ultrasonic units can use a _____ to convert energy.

a. Stackb. Cellc. Ferrite rodd. a and c

12. Piezoelectric ultrasonic units use _____ to convert energy.

a. Ceramic rodsb. Ceramic discsc. Metallic discsd. Any of the above

13. The majority of scaling using magnetostrictive ultrasonic inserts will be accomplished with ______________.

a. The pointb. The face c. The lateral and convex back surfacesd. The face and lateral surfaces

14. The available active area in the terminal part of ultrasonic inserts depends upon _____.

a. The frequency at which the ultrasonic scaler operates

b. The length of the insertc. The force applied using the insert against

the toothd. None of the above

15. Slim tip inserts are designed to be approximately ______ than standard inserts.

a. 20% slimmerb. 30% slimmerc. 15% shorterd. None of the above

16. What part of the insert should never be directed at the tooth surface?

a. The lateral surfaceb. The tipc. The point of the tipd. The circumference

17. Important factors in tip use are_____.

a. Keeping the tip moving continuallyb. Applying a light lateral forcec. Angulations of the tips to ensure they are

against the tooth surfaced. All of the above

18. False negatives for the pres-ence of residual calculus have been found in up to _____ of root surfaces.

a. 45 percentb. 55 percentc. 77 percentd. 83 percent

19. Piezoelectric ultrasonic units rely upon what type of movement?

a. Rotationalb. Ellipticalc. Lineard. All of the above

20. With piezoelectric ultrasonic units, _____surfaces of the insert’s tip are the most active.

a. Allb. The lateralc. The front and backd. Only the back

16 www.ineedce.com

Questions

21. Hand curettes have been found to be less efficient in scaling procedures than _____.

a. Irrigationb. Magnetostrictive ultrasonic scalersc. Piezoelectric ultrasonic scalersd. b and c

22. In a study comparing magne-tostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling, patients’ perception of discomfort was found to be _____.

a. Similarb. Very differentc. Less with piezoelectric ultrasonic scalingd. Less with magnetostrictive

ultrasonic scaling

23. Tissue distension can be minimized through _____.

a. Techniqueb. Careful selection of tipsc. a and bd. Local anesthesia

24. The cavitational effect of ultrasonic scalers aids _____.

a. Biofilm removalb. Bacterial resistancec. Saliva productiond. a and b

25. Reducing the amount of water sprayed from inserts _____.

a. Improves visibilityb. Improves patient comfortc. Reduces the need for suctiond. All of the above

26. Patient comfort varies with _____.

a. The specific insert tips usedb. Clinical skillc. The patient’s ability to sit uprightd. a and b

27. The flexibility of scaling tech-nique is greatest with _____.

a. Piezoelectric ultrasonic unitsb. Magnetostrictive ultrasonic unitsc. Lasersd. a and b

28. The efficacy of magnetostric-tive ultrasonics can be adapted by adjusting _____.

a. Tip angulationb. Lateral forcec. Power settingd. All of the above

29. The full circumference of deep pockets and root morphology can be properly instrumented using _____.

a. Beavertail insertsb. Right and left insertsc. Straight insertsd. Any of the above

30. Teflon-coated tips have been found to be _____than conventional ultrasonic tips.

a. As effectiveb. More effectivec. Less effectived. Quicker

31. Inserts are available for ultrasonic units with _____tips.

a. Straightb. Angulated c. Curved left and right d. All of the above

32. Standard size straight ultrasonic inserts are designed for _______.

a. Moderate to heavy deposit removal in probing depths less than 4 mm

b. Deposit removal in pockets deeper than 6 mm only

c. Biofilm removal onlyd. a and b

33. Debridement of pockets 4 mm deep or greater is achieved by _____.

a. Using straight inserts and a low power setting

b. Using slim inserts and a high power setting

c. Using slim inserts and a low power setting

d. a or b

34. Liquids used for lavage include_____.

a. Waterb. Chlorhexidinec. Sodium hypochlorited. All of the above

35. Scaling ergonomically includes_____.

a. Selecting a position for the patient that is comfortable for the clinician

b. The use of finger rests or fulcrum pointsc. Careful selection of instrumentsd. All of the above

36. Hand muscle load and pinch force are influenced by _____.

a. The diameter of the handleb. The weight of the handlec. The positioning of the patientd. a and b

37. The use of handpieces with swivel features___________.

a. Minimizes line pinchingb. Enables instrument manipulation in

areas of difficult access.c. Restricts patient positioningd. a and b

38. Implant surface roughness can result from the use of _____.

a. Stainless steel curettesb. Titanium alloy curettesc. Chlorhexidine mouthrinsesd. a and b

39. Disposable plastic tips designed for specialty inplant inserts have been found to_____.

a. Safely and effectively remove depositsb. Disturb the integrity of the implant site c. Be ineffectived. b and c

40. Compared to hand scalers, benefits of the latest ultrasonic scalers include _____.

a. Improved patient comfortb. Improved operator ergonomicsc. More effective treatmentd. All of the above

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

www.ineedce.com 17

ANSWER SHEET

Effectiveness and Efficiency in Ultrasonic Scaling

Name: Title: Specialty:

Address: E-mail:

City: State: ZIP:

Telephone: Home ( ) Office ( )

Requirements for successful completion of the course and to obtain dental continuing education credits: 1) Read the entire course. 2) Complete all information above. 3) Complete answer sheets in either pen or pencil. 4) Mark only one answer for each question. 5) A score of 70% on this test will earn you 5 CE credits. 6) Complete the Course Evaluation below. 7) Make check payable to PennWell Corp.

Educational Objectives1. Understand the importance of biofilm and calculus removal

2. Identify the advantages of ultrasonic scalers compared to hand scalers

3. Understand the types of power scalers available, their modes of action, and considerations in selecting a power scaler

4. Be able to determine the clinically appropriate inserts and tips for use in individual cases and the sequence in which

these should be used

5. Identify the ergonomic advantages and recent advancements in ultrasonic scalers

6. Understand the types of tips that can be used safely and effectively in implant maintenance, as well as which

materials are contraindicated for scaling implants

Course EvaluationPlease evaluate this course by responding to the following statements, using a scale of Excellent = 5 to Poor = 0.

1. Were the individual course objectives met? Objective #1: Yes No Objective #4: Yes No

Objective #2: Yes No Objective #5: Yes No

Objective #3: Yes No Objective #6: Yes No

2. To what extent were the course objectives accomplished overall? 5 4 3 2 1 0

3. Please rate your personal mastery of the course objectives. 5 4 3 2 1 0

4. How would you rate the objectives and educational methods? 5 4 3 2 1 0

5. How do you rate the author’s grasp of the topic? 5 4 3 2 1 0

6. Please rate the instructor’s effectiveness. 5 4 3 2 1 0

7. Was the overall administration of the course effective? 5 4 3 2 1 0

8. Do you feel that the references were adequate? Yes No

9. Would you participate in a similar program on a different topic? Yes No

10. If any of the continuing education questions were unclear or ambiguous, please list them.

___________________________________________________________________

11. Was there any subject matter you found confusing? Please describe.

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

12. What additional continuing dental education topics would you like to see?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

PLEASE PHOTOCOPY ANSWER SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS.

AGD Code 495

For immediate results, go to www.ineedce.com and click on the button “take tests Online.” answer sheets can be faxed with credit card payment to (440) 845-3447, (216) 398-7922, or (216) 255-6619.

�Payment of $64.00 is enclosed. (Checks and credit cards are accepted.)

If paying by credit card, please complete the following: MC Visa AmEx Discover

Acct. Number: _______________________________

Exp. Date: _____________________

Charges on your statement will show up as PennWell

Mail completed answer sheet to

Academy of Dental Therapeutics and Stomatology,A Division of PennWell Corp.

P.O. Box 116, Chesterland, OH 44026 or fax to: (440) 845-3447

AUTHOR DISCLAIMERThe author of this course have no commercial ties with the sponsors or the providers of the unrestricted educational grant for this course.

SPONSOR/PROVIDERThis course was made possible through an unrestricted educational grant. No manufacturer or third party has had any input into the development of course content. All content has been derived from references listed, and or the opinions of clinicians. Please direct all questions pertaining to PennWell or the administration of this course to Machele Galloway, 1421 S. Sheridan Rd., Tulsa, OK 74112 or macheleg@pennwell.com.

COURSE EVALUATION and PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKWe encourage participant feedback pertaining to all courses. Please be sure to complete the survey included with the course. Please e-mail all questions to: macheleg@pennwell.com.

INSTRUCTIONSAll questions should have only one answer. Grading of this examination is done manually. Participants will receive confirmation of passing by receipt of a verification form. Verification forms will be mailed within two weeks after taking an examination.

EDUCATIONAL DISCLAIMERThe opinions of efficacy or perceived value of any products or companies mentioned in this course and expressed herein are those of the author(s) of the course and do not necessarily reflect those of PennWell.

Completing a single continuing education course does not provide enough information to give the participant the feeling that s/he is an expert in the field related to the course topic. It is a combination of many educational courses and clinical experience that allows the participant to develop skills and expertise.

COURSE CREDITS/COSTAll participants scoring at least 70% (answering 28 or more questions correctly) on the examination will receive a verification form verifying 5 CE credits. The formal continuing education program of this sponsor is accepted by the AGD for Fellowship/Mastership credit. Please contact PennWell for current term of acceptance. Participants are urged to contact their state dental boards for continuing education requirements. PennWell is a California Provider. The California Provider number is 3274. The cost for courses ranges from $49.00 to $110.00.

Many PennWell self-study courses have been approved by the Dental Assisting National Board, Inc. (DANB) and can be used by dental assistants who are DANB Certified to meet DANB’s annual continuing education requirements. To find out if this course or any other PennWell course has been approved by DANB, please contact DANB’s Recertification Department at 1-800-FOR-DANB, ext. 445.

RECORD KEEPINGPennWell maintains records of your successful completion of any exam. Please contact our offices for a copy of your continuing education credits report. This report, which will list all credits earned to date, will be generated and mailed to you within five business days of receipt.

CANCELLATION/REFUND POLICYAny participant who is not 100% satisfied with this course can request a full refund by contacting PennWell in writing.

© 2008 by the Academy of Dental Therapeutics and Stomatology, a division of PennWell