Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

How does the novel piezoelectric 11 Gracey Curette compare to Gracey Curette or piezoelectric scaler?

Abstract

Design In vitro study.

Case selection A piezoelectric 11 Gracey Curette tip that combines a piezoelectric device and manual curette was tested for root surface roughness and bacterial adhesion after instrumentation. This novel device was compared against Gracey Curette, piezoelectric scaler and untreated control.

Data analysis Extracted human teeth roots (n = 36) were randomly assigned to each of the four groups, of which three groups underwent instrumentation as assigned and one served as untreated control. Profilometer was used to measure the surface roughness after instrumentation. In addition, S. mutans was inoculated to evaluate adhesion on the instrumented root surface.

Results The piezoelectric 11 Gracey Curette tip demonstrated significantly lower surface roughness compared to Gracey Curette, piezoelectric scaler and untreated control groups. With regards to bacterial adhesion, there was no significant differences in CFU values between novel device tips, Gracey Curette and piezoelectric scaler.

Conclusions Instrumentation with a piezoelectric 11 Gracey Curette tip resulted in a significantly smoother surface compared to instrumentation with Gracey Curette or piezoelectric scaler. As far as bacterial adherence, piezoelectric 11 Gracey Curette tip was not significantly different compared to the traditional methods. Given the limitations of in vitro research, further clinical studies need to be conducted to evaluate clinical outcomes and patient-centred outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. Krithikadatta J, Gopikrishna V, Datta M. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-vitro Studies): A concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17: 301-304.

  2. Suvan J, Leira Y, Moreno Sancho F M, Graziani F, Derks J, Tomasi C. Subgingival instrumentation for treatment of periodontitis. A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2020; 47 Suppl 22: 155-175.

  3. Puglisi R, Santos A, Pujol A, Ferrari M, Nart J, Pascual A. Clinical comparison of instrumentation systems for periodontal debridement: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Dent Hyg 2022; 20: 328-338.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Ethics declarations

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, S. How does the novel piezoelectric 11 Gracey Curette compare to Gracey Curette or piezoelectric scaler?. Evid Based Dent 23, 108–109 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0815-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0815-0

Search

Quick links