Instrumentation during the second stage of periodontal therapy: a European survey.

OBJECTIVES: To gather practice-based information about instrumentation during the second stage of periodontal therapy among the members of the European Federation of Periodontology. METHODS: This survey was conducted to investigate periodontal instrumentation (e.g., frequency, instruments, their maintenance) during the second stage of periodontal therapy. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 2008 responders actively involved in periodontal therapy (general dental practitioners, periodontists, and dental hygienists) were analyzed. The frequency of use of hand and mechanical instruments was similar during the second stage of periodontal therapy and 94.4% of the participants combined both. The most popular hand instruments were Gracey curettes, and the preferred mechanical devices were ultrasonic scalers. For the latter, mostly the combination of standard and micro/slim inserts was preferred (42.4%) over solely standard inserts (32.1%) or micro/slim inserts (25.5%). The wear of hand instruments was sytematically checked by 46.1% of the respondents and the wear of the inserts by 41.3%. The more experienced the dental professional, the more frequent the wear of the instruments and inserts was checked. CONCLUSION: The most popular periodontal instrumentation technique in clinical practice during the second stage of periodontal therapy is a combination of hand and mechanical instruments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should check the wear of their instruments systematically to have the most performant instruments possible for periodontal instrumentation. Scientists should see the results of this questionnaire as an incentive to set up studies investigating whether the combination of hand and mechanical instruments, the preferred treatment method of clinicians, is better than either of these instruments alone.

Oral Hygiene Instructions and Methods: A Comparative Survey of European General Dentists, Periodontists and Dental Hygienists.

PURPOSE: To study the practices of general dentists, periodontists and dental hygienists who are members of the European Federation of Periodontology, regarding oral hygiene education, plaque control assessment, recommended dental and interdental hygiene tools, and antimicrobial agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to 13,622 members of the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) through its 29 national member societies. It targeted general dentists (GD), specialists in periodontology (DSP) and dental hygienists (DH). Data were collected between 24 April and 17 May 2015. A data-driven statistical analysis was conducted and differences between professions were explored. RESULTS: A total of 2076 answers were collected. Only the 2009 answers originating from GD, DSP and DH were analysed (67 answers originated from other professions and were excluded). Among those 2009 respondents, 43.2% were DSP and 37.2% were GD. Overall, DH, DSP and GD reported spending 17.1 minutes for the initial teaching of OH, with differences between professions (p < 0.0001). DH, GD and DSP exhibited differences in the type of toothbrushes they recommend (p < 0.0001). DSP recommended electric and manual toothbrushes (TB) equally. DH predominantly recommended electric TB (56.8%). Overall, 95% of DH, DSP and GD recommended interdental brushes, with no statistically significant differences between professions. Low concentration chlorhexidine was considered the most relevant antimicrobial agent for daily oral care of periodontitis patients. Half of GD prescribed antimicrobial mouthrinses for long-term use in 70%-100% of their patients with periodontitis. CONCLUSION: EFP-affiliated practitioners allocate a significant amount of time to educating patients on oral health. Their practices are mostly in line with the current scientific evidence. Some discrepancies were found between the different professions. Similar surveys could be conducted over time to monitor the evolution of practices.

Comparative study of manual and ultrasonic instrumentation of cementum surfaces: influence of lateral pressure.

The goal of periodontal treatments is to eliminate bacteria and their products without damaging cementum surfaces. Nonsurgical treatments are often limited by the inability of curettes to access the most apical zone of the pocket. While ultrasonic mini-inserts have been used for nearly 10 years now, their effect on dental tissues has not been tested. The purpose of the present study was to compare a new series of mini-inserts to Gracey curettes, which are the reference in nonsurgical treatments. Two experienced periodontists conducted root treatments on teeth destined for extraction using regular clinical criteria. One face of each root was instrumented using a Gracey curette, and the opposite face was instrumented using an ultrasonic mini-insert. After the instrumentation procedure, the teeth were prepared for examination by secondary electron (topographic features) and backscattered electron (organic and mineral composition) microscopy. Differences in surface composition between teeth treated by the two periodontists were noted and were related to the lateral pressure exerted. Calculus removal was less effective when strong lateral pressure was exerted using the ultrasonic mini-inserts, while more cementum was removed and more scratching occurred with both manual and ultrasonic instruments. In all cases, the ultrasonic mini-inserts allowed greater apical access. The new ultrasonic mini-inserts were as effective as manual curettes in eliminating plaque and calculus. The shape of the mini-inserts made them more effective in apical zones. The amount of damage to the cementum depended on the lateral pressure exerted by the periodontist.