OBJECTIVETo compare the special series of ultrasonic inserts with Gracey curettes in the effectiveness and efficiency for non-surgical periodontal treatment.

METHODSA total of 30 patients with moderate to advanced chronic periodontal disease were treated with both ultrasonic inserts (ultrasonic group) and Gracey curettes (Gracey group) according to a prospective, randomized, controlled, one-blind, "split-mouth" design. Twenty-six cases were available for the whole follow-up period. Plaque index (PLI), bleeding index(BI), probing depth (PD), attachment loss (AL) were evaluated before and 6 weeks after treatment. Treatment time was recorded. The severity of pain during treatment and teeth sensitivity after treatment were evaluated by the visual analogue scale (VAS). Differences in clinical parameters were analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed ranks test and Mann and Whitney U-test.

RESULTSNo significant differences in any of the clinical parameters were observed at baseline between the two groups. The mean value of PD, BI, PLI, AL decreased in both ultrasonic group and Gracey group. At moderately deep site (initial PD between 4 mm and 5 mm), PD [M(Q(25), Q(75))] changed in the ultrasonic group from 4.0 (4.0, 4.5) mm to 3.0 (3.0, 3.0) mm (P < 0.001) and in the Gracey group from 4.0 (4.0, 5.0) mm to 3.0(3.0, 3.0) mm (P < 0.001). At deep sites (initial PD ≥ 6 mm) PD [M(Q(25), Q(75))] changed in the ultrasonic group from 7.0(6.0, 7.0) mm to 5.0(4.0, 7.0) mm (P < 0.001) and in the Gracey group from 7.0 (6.0, 7.0) mm to 5.0(4.0, 6.0) mm(P < 0.001). In the furcation area, PD [M(Q(25), Q(75))] changed from 5.0(4.0, 7.0) mm to 3.0(3.0, 5.0) mm (P < 0.001) in both Gracey group and ultrasonic group. However, the average time of active instrumentation was (2.41 ± 0.61) min/tooth in the ultrasonic scaling and (2.71 ± 0.61) min/tooth in the Gracey curette (P < 0.001). VAS scores [M(Q(25), Q(75))] of pain during treatment was 5.0(3.0, 6.7) in the ultrasonic group and 5.9 (4.9, 8.0) in the Gracey group (P = 0.001). VAS scores [M(Q(25), Q(75))] of sensitivity after treatment was 4.0 (1.8, 6.0) in the ultrasonic group and 4.9 (2.0, 8.0) in the Gracey group (P = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONSTreatment with the special series of ultrasonic inserts was as effective as the Gracey curette during initial therapy period in all clinical parameters measured and has the advantage of being quicker.

Adult ; Blood Loss, Surgical ; Chronic Periodontitis ; therapy ; Dental Plaque Index ; Dental Scaling ; adverse effects ; instrumentation ; methods ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pain Measurement ; Periodontal Attachment Loss ; etiology ; Single-Blind Method ; Ultrasonic Therapy ; adverse effects ; instrumentation

OBJECTIVE: To compare the volume of autogenous bone particles harvested utilizing different techniques and various implant systems during implant surgery, and to determine the advantageous method to collect autogenous bone particles. METHODS: Homogeneous epoxy resin simulated jaw bone model was enrolled. Bicon, Bego implant systems and Straumann tissue level implant systems were utilized. The two techniques were investigated. One method was low-speed drilling (50 r/min) without water irrigating, and the other one was drilling with cold water irrigating to the ideal depth, then closing the water and drilling out with low speed (50 r/min). The bone particles in the drill groove and implant beds were collected. The volumes of the bone harvested were compared between the different techniques and also among the three implant systems, then they were compared with the volume of the bone harvested by the special bone drill. The sample size of each sub-group was 10. The bone particles were weighed by electronic balance after drying. RESULTS: The harvested bone volume between the latch reamers and hand reamers of Bicon system with the first method was not significantly different. When the same size implant bed was prepared, the volume of the bone particles produced during the implant surgery with low-speed drill without water was significantly higher than that with the other method no matter Bicon [3.5 mm×10 mm hole for example (28.42±6.04) mg vs. (6.30±2.51) mg, P<0.001] or Bego system [2.8 mm×10 mm hole for example (28.95±5.39) mg vs. (4.61±3.39) mg, P<0.001] was used, and the ratio of bone volume between the first method and the second one was approximately 3.3 to 7.0 times. When using the second method to prepare the similar size implant bed, the bone volume was not significant different among Bicon, Bego and Straumann implant systems [Bicon (9.90±3.42) mg, Bego (8.70±4.09) mg, and Straumann (10.56±5.66) mg, P=0.69]. When preparing a 5 mm-diameter-10 mm-length hole with Bicon implant system and a 4.7 mm-diameter-10 mm-length with Bego implant system, the bone quantity harvested from each group was less than that harvested by special bone drill from Neo Biotech [Bicon (82.54±12.26) mg, Bego (85.07±12.64) mg vs. Neo Biotech (96.78±13.19) mg, P<0.05]. CONCLUSION More autogenous bone can be harvested from implant beds by preparing with low-speed rolling without water than the method with water irrigation. When utilizing the same preparing method, the implant system has no impact on the volume of the bone harvested.
Bone and Bones ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the change of endo-sinus bone height and bone volume in osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) without bone graft but placing implants simultaneously by using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and three dimensional analysis, and to find the impacting factors on endo-sinus bone augmentation. METHODS: OSFE was performed in 38 edentulous patients with missing teeth at posterior maxillary region, and 44 implants were placed and referred for OSFE using no graft materials. CBCT was performed pre-surgery and 9－68 months post-surgery when the patients encountered another implant surgery. The gained bone height at mesial, distal, buccal and palatal sites around the implant in sinus were measured, volumetric measurements of the endo-sinus gained bone volume (ESGBV) in the elevated region were calculated by Mimics software. Univariate analysis and multiple linear regression were performed to investigate the impacting factors on the gained bone height and ESGBV. Marginal bone loss was recorded according to the periapical radiography after implant restoration. RESULTS: The mean residual bone height (RBH) pre-surgery was (3.41±1.23) mm, the mean protruded length (PL) into sinus of implant post-surgery was (3.41±1.28) mm, the mean endo-sinus gained bone height was (2.44±1.23) mm at distal sites, (2.88±1.20) mm at mesial sites, (2.83±1.22) mm at buccal sites and (2.96±1.16) mm at palatal sites, the mean endo-sinus gained bone height at distal sites was significantly lower than the other three sites (P < 0.05). The average endo-sinus gained bone height was (2.78±1.13) mm. The mean ESGBV was (122.15± 73.27) mm³. Univariate analysis showed the more RBH, the less bone height gained in sinus, which existed at buccal, lingual, mesial and distal sites (P < 0.001), and the more RBH, the smaller ESGBV gained (P=0.012). The ESGBV was significantly higher in the subjects whose bone generation period was more than 24 months than those whose bone generation period less than 24 months (P=0.034). The more PL, the more bone height and ESGBV gained (P=0.008). Multivariate analysis showed after adjusting factors of gender, age, smoking, width of sinus floor, thickness of sinus membrane pre-surgery, diameter and length of the implant, PL and bone generation period was positively correlated with mean endo-sinus gained bone height and ESGBV, while RBH negatively correlated with mean endo-sinus gained bone height. During the follow-up, the mean marginal bone loss was 0 (0－1.41) mm and all the implants loaded successfully. CONCLUSION OSFE without bone graft but with placed implant simultaneously can increase endo-sinus gained bone height and ESGBV. RBH, PL and bone generation period are the significant factors impacting endo-sinus bone augmentation.
Bone Transplantation ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous ; Dental Implants ; Humans ; Maxilla/surgery* ; Osteotomy ; Radiography ; Sinus Floor Augmentation ; Treatment Outcome