Comparison and Assessment of Design, Handling Characteristics, and Efficacy of Hand Instruments in Calculus Removal

Authors

Mohan Kumar Pasupuleti, Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, IndiaFollow
Krishna Ganesh, Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, IndiaFollow
Gautami S Penmetsa, Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, IndiaFollow
Boddeda Anusha, Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, IndiaFollow
Haripriya Narukurthi, Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, IndiaFollow
Kommina Mouna Sahith, Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, IndiaFollow

Abstract

Objective: primary objective of periodontal therapy is to remove supra and subgingival deposits from the tooth surface to stop disease progression. The purpose of the study is to address the instrument selection and its efficacy in calculus removal. Methods: A total of 50 subjects who fulfilled the criteria were included in the study. Participants were subjected to a complete periodontal examination, and the responses from 50 dental house surgeons were compared based on the instrument design, handling characteristics, and efficacy of calculus removal by using two sets of instruments. Results: The LM instrument was rated as best (40 out of 50 participants) based on usability features like weight, the diameter of the handle, material, and surface characteristics. Handgrip, static friction, and surface characteristics features (43&7; 45&5; 40&10) were more for LM instruments when compared to Hu-friedy instruments. When compared to efficacy in calculus removal it was easy with Hu-Friedy instruments. Conclusion: Handling characteristics and efficacy of instruments depend on the design and type of material used to manufacture instruments. Cooperation between researchers, manufacturers, and experienced dental professionals is needed for an active and open-minded process during the development of dental instruments.

References

1. Kumar PM, Sahitya S, Penmetsa GS, Supraja S, Kengadaran S, Chaitanya A. Assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practice related to ergonomics among the students of three different dental schools in India: An original research. J Educ Health Promot. 2020; 9:266.

2. Narukurthi H, Pasupuleti MK, Penmetsa GS, Sruthima NG, Ramesh K, Vinnakota K, Sravanthi V, Gera D. Comparison of non surgical periodontal treatment outcome and clinician’s comfort levels using LM ErgoMax over Hu-Friedy Hand Instruments-A randomised clinical trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2023; 17(2):ZC46-51.

3. Puglisi R, Santos A, Pujol A, Ferrari M, Nart J, Pascual A. Clinical comparison of instrumentation systems for per iodontal debr idement: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Dent Hyg. 2022; 20(2):328-38.

4. Rempel D, Lee DL, Dawson K, Loomer P. The effects of periodontal curette handle weight and diameter on arm pain: A four-month randomized controlled trial. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012;143(10):1105-13.

5. Cobb CM. Clinical significance of non-surgical per iodontal therapy: An evidence-based perspective of scaling and root planing. J Clin Periodontol. 2002; 29 Suppl 2:6-16.

6. Yan Y, Zhan Y, Wang X, Hou J. Clinical evaluation of ultrasonic subgingival debridement versus ultrasonic subgingival scaling combined with manual root planing in the treatment of periodontitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2020; 21(1):113.

7. Pioneers in Instrument [Internet]. Parainen: LMDental ™; c2023 [cited 2022 Sep 10]. Available from: https://lm-dental.com/en-us/about-us/ company/

8. Simmer-Beck M, Branson BG. An evidence-based review of ergonomic features of dental hygiene instruments. Work. 2010; 35(4):477-85.

9. Dong H, Loomer P, Barr A, Laroche C, Young E, Rempel D. The effect of tool handle shape on hand muscle load and pinch force in a simulated dental scaling task. Appl Ergon. 2007; 38(5):525-31.

10. Canakci V, Orbak R, Tezel A, Canakci CF. Influence of different periodontal curette grips on the outcome of mechanical non-surgical therapy. Int Dent J. 2003; 53(3):153-8.

11. Dahiya P, Kamal R. Rotary instruments in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A randomized clinical trial. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2013; 17(6):748-52.

12. Kamath DG, Umesh Nayak S. Detection, removal and prevention of calculus: Literature Review. Saudi Dent J. 2014; 26(1):7-13.

13. Mittal A, Nichani AS, Venugopal R, Rajani V. The effect of various ultrasonic and hand instruments on the root surfaces of human single rooted teeth: A Planimetric and Profilometric study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2014; 18(6):710-7.

14. Marda P, Prakash S, Devaraj CG, Vastardis S. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using manual, ultrasonic and rotary instruments: An in vitro study using scanning electron microscopy. Indian J Dent Res. 2012; 23(2):164-70.

15. Ioannou I, Dimitriadis N, Papadimitriou K, Sakellari D, Vouros I, Konstantinidis A. Hand instrumentation versus ultrasonic debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A randomized clinical and microbiological trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36(2):132-41.

Recommended Citation

Pasupuleti, M., Ganesh, K., Penmetsa, G., Anusha, B., Narukurthi, H., & Mouna Sahith, K. Comparison and Assessment of Design, Handling Characteristics, and Efficacy of Hand Instruments in Calculus Removal. J Dent Indones. 2023;30(3): 171-179