Evaluation of a systematic digitized training program on the effectivity of subgingival instrumentation with curettes and sonic scalers in vitro.

OBJECTIVES: Whereas the key role of subgingival instrumentation in periodontal therapy is well known, the influence of operators' experience/training with different devices on treatment results is yet uncertain. Therefore, we assessed untrained undergraduate students, working on manikins, as to how effectively they learn to use curettes (GRA) and sonic scalers (AIR); hypothesizing that AIR will result in higher relative cleaning efficacy (RCE) than GRA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Before baseline evaluation (T0), 30 operators (9 males, 21 females) received a 2-h theoretical lesson for both instruments, followed by a 12-week period with a weekly digitized training program for 45 min. During three sessions (T1-T3), the operators had to instrument six equivalent test teeth with GRA and AIR. At T0-T3, treatment time, proportion of removed simulated biofilm (RCE-b), and hard deposits (RCE-d) were measured. RESULTS: At T0, RCE-b was in mean(SD) 64.18(25.74) % for GRA, 62.25(26.69) % for AIR; (p = 0.172) and RCE-d 85.48(12.32) %/ 65.71(15.27) % (p < 0.001). At T3, operators reached highest RCE-b in both groups (GRA/AIR 71.54(23.90) %/71.75(23.05)%; p = 0.864); RCE-d GRA/AIR: 84.68(16.84) %/77.85(13.98) %; p < 0.001). Both groups achieved shorter treatment times after training. At T3, using curettes was faster (GRA/AIR 16.67(3.31) min/19.80(4.52) min; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After systematic digitized training, untrained operators were able to clean 70% of the root surfaces with curettes and sonic scalers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It can be concluded that a systematic digitized and interactive training program in manikin heads is helpful in the training of root surface debridement.

Results of an experimental study of subgingival cleaning effectiveness in the furcation area.

BACKGROUND: Sufficient biofilm removal in the furcation area (FA) is a major challenge in the clinical practice of supportive periodontal therapy. The aim of the present experimental study was to simulate subgingival cleaning of the FA using a powered scaler (sonic scaler (AIR), ultrasonic scaler (US)) for conventional mechanical debridement versus two air polishing with nonabrasive powder (LAPA-1: glycine powder, LAPA-2: erythritol powder) and different nozzles for supra-/subgingival cleaning for each device. METHODS: Seven trained and calibrated operators with ≥ 2 years each of professional experience in treating periodontitis used the instruments to clean 3D-printed replicas of six molars with through-and-through FA (four 3-rooted and two 2-rooted teeth) in a manikin head. AIR and US were used in the control group; air polishing instruments were used in the test group. For reproducible evaluation, the test teeth were separated vertically into two or three parts, illuminated with ultraviolet light, photographed and evaluated planimetrically. Treatment time (TrT, in s) and relative cleaning efficacy (RCE, in %) were measured. RESULTS: Overall, 3-rooted molars (RCE in the entire FA, 23.19 ± 20.98%) could be cleaned significantly less effectively than 2-rooted molars (53.04 ± 28.45%, p < 0.001), regardless of the instrument used. In the cleaning of the entire FA, significantly higher RCE values were achieved with conventional mechanical debridement (AIR/US: 46.04 ± 25.96%/39.63 ± 22.02%; AIR vs. US: p > 0.05) than with air polishing (LAPA-1/LAPA-2: 34.06 ± 29.48%/17.09 ± 18.85%; LAPA-1 vs. LAPA-2: p < 0.001) regardless of whether a supra- or subgingival cleaning nozzle used (p < 0.001). Only LAPA-1 with a subgingival nozzle showed RCE values comparable to those of US (41.07 ± 28.95% vs. 39.63 ± 22.02%, p > 0.05). TrT was longest for US (299.40 ± 120.69 s) and shortest for LAPA-1 with a supragingival nozzle (129.67 ± 60.92 s, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: All of the examined instruments were effective to some degree in removing the simulated biofilm from the FA, but they differed substantially in cleaning efficacy. Only one air polishing device (LAPA-1) with a rigid subgingival nozzle was able to achieve RCE values similar to those of US. The current investigation confirmed that conventional mechanical debridement with powered scalers were most effective, but treatment took longer with these devices than air polishing.

Oral health-related quality of life impacts are low 27 years after periodontal therapy.

AIM: This pilot study assessed the oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) after long-term periodontal therapy and explored OHRQoL differences along the 2018 Classification of Periodontal Diseases. METHODS: Sixty patients were examined before (T0) and after active periodontal therapy (APT/T1) and 32.0 ± 2.9 [range: 27-38] years of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT/T2). Periodontal diagnosis at T0 was assessed according to the 2018 Classification of Periodontal Diseases (stage 1/2/3/4: n = 1/3/44/13; grade n = A/B/C: 0/8/53). OHRQoL at T2 was measured using the Oral Health Impact Profile-G14 (OHIP-G14). Patients' Eichner's classification, accumulated tooth loss and treatment outcomes (SSO criteria) were assessed at T2. Generalized linear modelling (GLM) assessed associations between different factors and OHrQoL. RESULTS: Mean OHIP-G14 sum score was 3.7 (SD 5.6). There was no statistically significant association between OHIP-G14 and gender, stage, SSO criteria and tooth loss. OHIP-G14 was significantly lower in older patients (-0.2[-0.3;0] per year, p = .008), non-smokers (-5.9[-9.9;-1.9] p = .003) and former smokers (-7.4[-11.6;-3.2]; p < .001) versus current smokers, patients with Eichner class A1-B2 versus C2 (p < .05), sufficient adherence during SPT (-2.3[-4.6;-0.1], p = .044) versus insufficient ones. Patients with grade B (4.4[1.3;7.4]; p < .005) showed higher OHIP-G14 than those with grade C. CONCLUSION: A number of aspects, grounded in the initial diagnosis, the adherence to SPT, the resulting dentition, socio-demographic and behavioural covariates, were associated with good OHrQoL.

Influence of motivation and a new digitized training program on undergraduate dental students during preclinical scaling training.

BACKGROUND: The current study evaluated whether a new digitized scaling training program (DTP: n = 30; supervisor-student-ratio 1:10) improves the performance of undergraduate dental student during a preclinical course in regard to two different instruments [sonic scalers (AIR) and Gracey curettes (GRA)] compared to a conventional training program (CTP: n = 19; supervisor-student-ratio 1:4). METHODS: All the participants received a two-hour lecture on both instruments, followed by a 12-week period with a weekly training program lasting 45 min (10 sessions); one group was supported by DTP. At the end of the training phase, all the participants performed the subgingival scaling of six equivalent test teeth using GRA and AIR. Treatment time, proportion of removed simulated biofilm (relative cleaning efficacy, RCE-b) and hard deposits (RCE-d) were recorded. By using a pseudonymized questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale, self-assessment of scaling effort, handling, root surface roughness/destruction and effectiveness were evaluated. In addition, personal data such as age, gender, handedness, regularity of playing computer games/consoles and previous dental/technical or medical education were elevated and correlated with cleaning efficacy. RESULTS: The DTP participants showed higher effectiveness in RCE-b compared to those who used the CTP with GRA (71.54% vs. 67.23%, p = 0.004) and AIR (71.75% vs. 62.63%, p ≤ 0.001), and the DTP students were faster with both instruments (p ≤ 0.001). For RCE-d, there was no significant difference between the DTP and CTP groups (GRA p = 0.471; AIR p = 0.158), whereas DTP showed better RCE-d results with GRA versus AIR (84.68% vs. 77.85%, p < 0.001). According to the questionnaire, no significant differences were detected between the training groups in terms of self-assessment, handling, treatment time, root surface roughness/destruction or effectiveness of the instruments. The CTP group favored AIR compared to GRA regarding the fatigue effect. The CTP and playing computer games/consoles regularly was correlated with lower RCE-b, whereas previous education in medicine/dentistry was correlated with higher RCE-b values. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, the DTP with a reduced supervision effort compared to the CTP resulted in higher effectiveness and lower instrumentation time for removing simulated biofilms.

The efficacy of an extraoral scavenging device on reducing aerosol particles ≤ 5 µm during dental aerosol-generating procedures: an exploratory pilot study in a university setting.

OBJECTIVE/AIM: To identify small particle concentrations (eight categories: ≤0.1 µm × ≤5.0 µm) induced by aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs; high-speed tooth preparation, ultrasonic scaling; air polishing) under high-flow suction with a 16-mm intraoral cannula with and without an additional mobile extraoral scavenger (EOS) device during student training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty tests were performed (16.94 m2 room without ventilation with constant temperature (26.7 (1.1) °C and humidity (56.53 (4.20)%)). Data were collected 2 min before, 2 min during, and 6 min after AGPs. The EOS device and the air sampler for particle counting were placed 0.35 m from the open mouth of a manikin head. The particle number concentration (PN, counts/m3) was measured to calculate ΔPN (ΔPN = [post-PN] - [pre-PN]). RESULTS: Mean ΔPN (SD) ranged between -8.65E+06 (2.86E+07) counts/m3 for 0.15 µm and 6.41E+04 (2.77E+05) counts/m3 for 1.0 µm particles. No significant differences were found among the AGP groups (p > 0.05) or between the AGP and control groups (p > 0.05). With an EOS device, lower ΔPN was detected for smaller particles by high-speed tooth preparation (0.1-0.3 µm; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: A greater reduction in the number of smaller particles generated by the EOS device was found for high-speed tooth preparation. Low ΔPN by all AGPs demonstrated the efficacy of high-flow suction. CONCLUSIONS: The additional use of an EOS device should be carefully considered when performing treatments, such as high-speed tooth preparation, that generate particularly small particles when more people are present and all other protective options have been exhausted.

Long-term periodontitis treatment costs according to the 2018 classification of periodontal diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To assess if long-term treatment costs in periodontitis patients differ between stage III vs. IV and grade B vs. C according to the 2018 classification of periodontal diseases. METHODS: A cohort of 231 periodontitis patients (followed over a mean of 18.4 years) was evaluated. Costs for active periodontal therapy (APT, including scaling and root planning, open flap debridement, root resections) and supportive periodontal therapy (SPT, including also restorative, endodontic, prosthetic and surgical treatment) were estimated from a mixed payer-perspective in Germany (in Euro 2020). Multi-dimensional staging and grading was applied. The impact of stage, grade, sex and age on total and annual costs was assessed. RESULTS: Mean (SD) total and annual treatment costs were 7154 (2554) Euro and 437 (222) Euro. Costs were generated during SPT (92 %) and by periodontal treatment (88 %) and decreased significantly with longer follow-up (p < 0.001). Total costs were 7120 (2692) Euro in stage III (n = 154) vs. 7221 (2271) Euro in stage IV (n = 77; p > 0.05), and 6256 (1605) Euro in grade B (n = 35) vs. 7314 (2660) Euro in grade C (n = 196; p < 0.001). Annual costs were 426 (219) Euro vs. 459 (228) Euro for stage III vs. stage IV (p > 0.05) and 308 (163) Euro vs. 460 (224) Euro for grade B vs. grade C (p < 0.001). Multivariable modelling found grade, but not stage, sex and age significantly associated with costs. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, and in patients with severe periodontitis who were systematically treated long-term, grading, but not staging was associated with costs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment costs were higher in patients with more progressive periodontitis and were found to decrease during follow-up. Dentists need to consider costs during treatment planning and communication with patients.

Diameter and Taper Variability of Single-file Instrumentation Systems and Their Corresponding Gutta-percha Cones.

INTRODUCTION: Manufacturers offer single-file instrumentation systems with matching gutta-percha (GP) cones to simplify root canal preparation and obturation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether file diameters and tapers match with corresponding cone diameters and tapers (precision) as well as industry standards (accuracy). METHODS: Twenty files and corresponding GP cones from each size of F360 (#25, #35, #45, #55 with .04 taper) and Reciproc (#25, #40, #50 with variable tapers) instruments were examined by using optical microscopy (×32) to determine their diameter and taper. Precision was evaluated by using one-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05) with Scheffé post hoc tests and t tests with Bonferroni correction. Accuracy was calculated by subtracting the nominal values from the measured values of all files and GP cones, and mean diameter and taper differences were compared by using one-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05) and Scheffé post hoc test for pairwise comparison. RESULTS: For F360, the majority of file and cone diameters were within the tolerance levels, but most of the file diameters were significantly larger than GP cone diameters (P < .05), but the majority of all measured values were within the tolerance levels. For Reciproc, file and cone diameters at D1 and D3 mostly approached the nominal values. At the coronal end, file diameters #25 and #50 were significantly smaller than cone diameters (P < .05). For both instrumentation systems, almost all file and cone tapers matched with the preset tolerance ranges. For Reciproc, significant differences between file and GP cone demonstrated either smaller cone or smaller file diameters and tapers, depending on the size. Most of the measured values were within the acceptable range, but diameters at the coronal end exhibited the highest percent difference from the nominal values. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the call for standardization, variability in diameter and taper dimensions between single-file instrumentation systems and their corresponding GP cones can be expected.