Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

  • 제46권2호
  • /
  • Pages.107-115
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 2093-2278(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2093-2286(eISSN)
대한치주과학회 (Korean Academy of Periodontology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Characteristics of the molar surface after removal of cervical enamel projections: comparison of three different rotating instruments

  • Ko, Min-Jeong (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University Daejeon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Cho, Chan-Myung (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University Daejeon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Dentistry) ;
  • Jeong, Seong-Nyum (Department of Periodontology, Wonkwang University Daejeon Dental Hospital, Wonkwang University School of Dentistry)
  • 투고 : 2015.12.05
  • 심사 : 2016.02.01
  • 발행 : 2016.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare tooth surface characteristics in extracted human molars after cervical enamel projections (CEPs) were removed with the use of three rotating instruments. Methods: We classified 60 extracted molars due to periodontal lesion with CEPs into grade I, II, or III, according to the Masters and Hoskins' criteria. Each group contained 20 specimens. Three rotating instruments were used to remove the CEPs: a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler, a periodontal bur, and a diamond bur. Tooth surface characteristics before and after removal of the projections were then evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). We analyzed the characteristics of the tooth surfaces with respect to roughness and whether the enamel projections had been completely removed. Results: In SEM images, surfaces treated with the diamond bur were smoothest, but this instrument caused considerable harm to tooth structures near the CEPs. The piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler group produced the roughest surface but caused less harm to the tooth structure near the furcation. In general, the surfaces treated with the periodontal bur were smoother than those treated with the ultrasonic scaler, and the periodontal bur did not invade adjacent tooth structures. Conclusions: For removal of grade II CEPs, the most effective instrument was the diamond bur. However, in removing grade III projections, the diamond bur can destroy both adjacent tooth structures and the periodontal apparatus. In such cases, careful use of the periodontal bur may be an appropriate substitute.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Nishihara T, Koseki T. Microbial etiology of periodontitis. Periodontol 2000 2004;36:14-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2004.03671.x
  2. Attar NB, Phadnaik MB. Bilateral cervicoenamel projection and its management: A case report with lingual involvement. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2009;13:168-71. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.60233
  3. Askenas BG, Fry HR, Davis JW. Cervical enamel projection with gingival fenestration in a maxillary central incisor: report of a case. Quintessence Int 1992;23:103-7.
  4. Masters DH, Hoskins SW Jr. Projection of cervical enamel into molar furcations. J Periodontol 1964;35:49-53. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1964.35.1.49
  5. Swan RH, Hurt WC. Cervical enamel projections as an etiologic factor in furcation involvement. J Am Dent Assoc 1976;93:342-5. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1976.0527
  6. Atkinson SR. Changing dynamics of the growing face. Am J Orthod 1949;35:815-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(49)90077-9
  7. Grewe JM, Meskin LH, Miller T. Cervical enamel projections: prevalence, location, and extent; with associated periodontal implications. J Periodontol 1965;36:460-5. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1965.36.6.460
  8. Blanchard SB, Derderian GM, Averitt TR, John V, Newell DH. Cervical enamel projections and associated pouch-like opening in mandibular furcations. J Periodontol 2012;83:198-203. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2011.110088
  9. Carranza FA Jr, Jolkovsky DL. Current status of periodontal therapy for furcation involvements. Dent Clin North Am 1991;35:555-70.
  10. Hou GL, Tsai CC. Relationship between periodontal furcation involvement and molar cervical enamel projections. J Periodontol 1987;58:715-21. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1987.58.10.715
  11. Hou GL, Tsai CC. Cervical enamel projection and intermediate bifurcational ridge correlated with molar furcation involvements. J Periodontol 1997;68:687-93. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1997.68.7.687
  12. Machtei EE, Wasenstein SM, Peretz B, Laufer D. The relationship between cervical enamel projection and class II furcation defects in humans. Quintessence Int 1997;28:315-20.
  13. Bower RC. Furcation morphology relative to periodontal treatment. Furcation root surface anatomy. J Periodontol 1979;50:366-74. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1979.50.7.366
  14. Shiloah J, Kopczyk RA. Developmental variations of tooth morphology and periodontal disease. J Am Dent Assoc 1979;99:627-30. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1979.0364
  15. Cho KY, Choi SM. Prevalence of cervical enamel projections and its relation to furcation involvement. J Korean Acad Periodontol 1986;16:96-7.
  16. Moskow BS. Some observations on radicular enamel. J Periodontol 1971;42:92-6. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1971.42.2.92
  17. Bissada NF, Abdelmalek RG. Incidence of cervical enamel projections and its relationship to furcation involvement in Egyptian skulls. J Periodontol 1973;44:583-5. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1973.44.9.583
  18. Bye FL, Ghilzan RS, Coffesse RG. Root surface roughness after the use of different modes of instrumentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1986;6:36-47.
  19. Rosenberg RM, Ash MM Jr. The effect of root roughness on plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. J Periodontol 1974;45:146-50. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1974.45.3.146
  20. Khatiblou FA, Ghodssi A. Root surface smoothness or roughness in periodontal treatment. A clinical study. J Periodontol 1983;54:365-7. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1983.54.6.365
  21. Stende GW, Schaffer EM. A comparison of ultrasonic and hand scaling. J Periodontol 1961;32:312-4. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1961.32.4.312
  22. Kawashima H, Sato S, Kishida M, Ito K. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using two piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers and a hand scaler in vivo. J Periodontal Res 2007;42:90-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0765.2006.00924.x
  23. Kishida M, Sato S, Ito K. Comparison of the effects of various periodontal rotary instruments on surface characteristics of root surface. J Oral Sci 2004;46:1-8. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.46.1
  24. Heo SR, Kim SA, Seo SR, Kim HS. A study on the loss of tooth substance and surface changes following root planing. J Korean Acad Periodontol 1998;28:351-69. https://doi.org/10.5051/jkape.1998.28.2.351
  25. Eick S, Bender P, Flury S, Lussi A, Sculean A. In vitro evaluation of surface roughness, adhesion of periodontal ligament fibroblasts, and Streptococcus gordonii following root instrumentation with Gracey curettes and subsequent polishing with diamond-coated curettes. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:397-404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0719-z
  26. Aspriello SD, Piemontese M, Levrini L, Sauro S. Ultramorphology of the root surface subsequent to hand-ultrasonic simultaneous instrumentation during non-surgical periodontal treatments: an in vitro study. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19:74-81. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572011000100015
  27. Bower RC. Furcation morphology relative to periodontal treatment. Furcation entrance architecture. J Periodontol 1979;50:23-7. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1979.50.1.23

피인용 문헌

  1. Cytotoxic Effects on Gingival Mesenchymal Stromal Cells and Root Surface Modifications Induced by Some Local Antimicrobial Products Used in Periodontitis Treatment vol.14, pp.17, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175049