Comfortable supragingival scaling uses ultrasonic cleaning with sedation and minimally invasive techniques to minimize the negative emotions of patients and improve patient compliance. At present, there is still much room for optimization of the environment, equipment, and operation steps for the development of comfortable supragingival scaling. On this basis, the Department of Periodontology, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University proposed a 16-step new model of comfortable supragingival scaling. The new model incorporates adjustments to the previous model concerning the environment, equipment, operational procedures, process links and services, comprising 16 steps for optimization and innovation. Clinical practice has confirmed that the 16-step new model of comfortable supra-gingival scaling can significantly improve patient satisfaction and adherence to medical treatment, and it has good promotional value.
Humans ; Dental Scaling/instrumentation* ; Patient Satisfaction ; Patient Compliance ; Gingiva

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

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the effect of electronic dental analgesia (EDA) device--Team Up Duo during ultrasonic scaling.

METHODSThe clinical trial was conducted as a randomized double-blind split-mouth design. Eighty-one patients requiring ultrasonic scaling were selected as subjects. Patients received treatment using the EDA device either in an active or an inactive state in paired quadrants. The patients scored their pain/discomfort levels with visual analog scale (VAS) after each procedure and filled a questionnaire.

RESULTSIn questionnaire, 79.0% patients felt EDA could relieve pain/discomfort during ultrasonic scaling. But the double-blind test showed that Team Up Duo was effective in 46.9% patients overall. The effective rate was 55.1% and 34.4% in groups with or without attachment loss, respectively. In CP group, the success rate of EDA was not statistically significantly different between the groups according to sex, age or site.

CONCLUSIONSWhen using Team Up Duo during ultrasonic scaling, most patients subjectively believed that it was effective for controlling pain. In fact, this EDA device was effective in partial patients.

Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Child ; Dental Scaling ; methods ; Double-Blind Method ; Female ; Humans ; Intraoperative Complications ; prevention & control ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Pain ; prevention & control ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation ; instrumentation ; Ultrasonic Therapy ; adverse effects ; Young Adult