Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorDominici, F.
dc.contributor.authorCintan, Serdar
dc.contributor.authorPilloni, A.
dc.contributor.authorMariotti, A.
dc.contributor.authorAydin, M. S.
dc.contributor.authorGuida, L.
dc.contributor.authorBozbay, E.
dc.contributor.authorGokbuget, A. Y.
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-05T15:37:41Z
dc.date.available2021-03-05T15:37:41Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationBozbay E., Dominici F., Gokbuget A. Y. , Cintan S., Guida L., Aydin M. S. , Mariotti A., Pilloni A., "Preservation of root cementum: a comparative evaluation of power-driven versus hand instruments", INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DENTAL HYGIENE, cilt.16, ss.202-209, 2018
dc.identifier.issn1601-5029
dc.identifier.otherav_bcb49644-ca57-433f-8325-cd70873d80cf
dc.identifier.othervv_1032021
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/125435
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1111/idh.12249
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of three distinct periodontal treatment methods in comparison with hand instrumentation on residual cementum of periodontal diseased teeth. Cementum can influence the activities of periodontal cells and may play an important regulatory role in periodontal treatment. The ideal method for periodontal therapy involves removal of biofilm, calculus and endotoxin while preserving root cementum. Material and methods: Forty-eight caries free, single-rooted teeth in patients diagnosed with severe chronic periodontitis were treated using four different methods prior to extraction. The teeth were instrumented subgingivally at one approximal site either by hand curettes (HC), piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers (U), piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers following air polishing (U + AP) or air polishing (AP) alone. Following extraction of teeth, instrumented and non-instrumented sites were analysed with a dissecting microscope and SEM for measurement of the amount of and surface characteristics of residual cementum. Results: The percentage of coronal cementum remaining following subgingival instrumentation was 84% for U, 80% for U + AP, 94% for AP and 65% for HC. Although subgingival instrumentation of apical portions of the cementum demonstrated 6% less retained cementum in comparison with coronal portions, the amount of retained cementum with AP was still significantly greater than with HC. SEM results found the smoothest root surfaces were produced by the HC followed by the AP, while root surfaces instrumented by U or U + AP presented grooves and scratches. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that AP was superior to U devices in preserving cementum, whereas HC were the most effective instruments in removing cementum.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectOrthodontics
dc.subjectSağlık Bilimleri
dc.subjectDiş Hekimliği
dc.subjectOral Surgery
dc.subjectDentistry (miscellaneous)
dc.subjectDental Hygiene
dc.subjectPeriodontics
dc.subjectDental Assisting
dc.subjectGeneral Dentistry
dc.subjectHealth Sciences
dc.subjectDİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ, ORAL CERRAHİ VE TIP
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp (MED)
dc.subjectTıp
dc.titlePreservation of root cementum: a comparative evaluation of power-driven versus hand instruments
dc.typeMakale
dc.relation.journalINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DENTAL HYGIENE
dc.contributor.departmentSapienza University Rome , ,
dc.identifier.volume16
dc.identifier.issue2
dc.identifier.startpage202
dc.identifier.endpage209
dc.contributor.firstauthorID253162


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster