Comparison of ultrasonic to hand instruments in the removal of subgingival plaque
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of hand and ultrasonic instrumentation in removing subgingival plaque. Twenty-four teeth in five patients were randomly assigned to be scaled by hand instruments, scaled by ultrasonic instruments, or uninstrumented as a control The subgingival tooth surface was delineated by a groove, and the teeth were then extracted for periodontal reasons. The percentage of plaque area relative to the total surface area of the side of the tooth was computed. No significant difference was found between the two methods in removing subgingival plaque. Furthermore, neither method removed all of the plaque.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Preliminary Toxicity Analysis of 3DCRT versus IMRT on the High Dose Arm of the RTOG 0126 Prostate Cancer Trial
- Adaptive Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: Initial Clinical Outcomes from a Prospective Trial
- American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 263: Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology
- Motion Management Strategies and Technical Issues Associated with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Thoracic and Upper Abdominal Tumors: A Review from NRG Oncology
- High-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy as a monotherapy for localized prostate cancer: treatment description and preliminary results of a phase I/II clinical trial
- Highly efficient training, refinement, and validation of a knowledge-based plan quality control system for radiotherapy clinical trials
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.