Mechanized scaling with ultrasonics: Perils and proactive measures

Are dental hygienists at risk for noise-induced hearing loss? A literature review

Objective

The aim of this review is to explore dental hygienists' risk for noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) and to describe the current hearing protection options.

Methods

A literature search was undertaken using the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Libraries, and Google Scholar. The returns were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria and the remaining studies were critically appraised.

Results and Discussion

Seventeen articles assessed noise levels and NIHL risk in dental settings; and 11 articles examined hearing protection devices. The literature revealed that oral health practitioners were exposed to excessive noise limits (85 dBA) in an 8-hour workday, therefore increasing the risk of NIHL. Oral health professionals need to be aware of this risk and the preventive measures they can take to reduce the potential for hearing loss. Effective preventive measures may include hearing protective devices (HPDs), educational programs, insulated noise-absorbing materials, and regular monitoring of noise exposure.

Conclusion

Dental hygienists may be at risk for permanent or temporary hearing loss in their work environment. Permanent hearing loss from the use of ultrasonic scalers appears to be minimal. To prevent hearing loss, active (electronic) HPDs are recommended as they allow practitioners to protect their hearing and communicate with clients.

Removal of simulated biofilm: an evaluation of the effect on root surfaces roughness after scaling

BACKGROUND

Despite the development of less invasive devices, a debate exists about the benefits and risks of hand versus powered root surface instrumentation used in supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). The aim of the in vitro study was to differentially compare plaque removal efficacy and root surface roughening of newly developed sonic, ultrasonic scaler, and curettes in the hands of experienced versus less experienced operators.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sonic (AIR), ultrasonic devices (TIG), and double-gracey curettes (GRA) were utilized by seven experienced (EO) and four less experienced operators (LO) for root surface instrumentation of standardized plastic teeth on manikins' heads in a randomized sequence. The proportion of residual simulated plaque (RSP area in %) was planimetrically assessed, and the average root surface roughness produced (Ra and ∆Ra in μm) was measured by a precision profilometer.

RESULTS

The uninstrumented root surfaces showed a Ra of (median (Q25/Q75)) 1.00 μm (0.83/1.16). Following instrumentation, EO left significantly less RSP than LO regardless of the used instruments (20.00 % (10.00/34.00) vs. 26.00 % (12.00/44.00) p < 0.001), whereas the ∆Ra values (0.29 μm (-0.04/0.96) vs. 0.35 μm (-0.04/1.01), p = 0.237) failed to show significant differences. The surface roughness was higher with GRA followed by AIR then TIG regardless of operators' experience (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Within the limits of the present study, the sonic device was most efficient in plaque removal, while the ultrasonic device produced the least surface roughness.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

All three tested instruments seem effective in the mechanical root debridement during SPT, whereat the ultrasonic device show the smoothest root surface of all.

Efficacy versus health risks: An in vitro evaluation of power-driven scalers

Background:

Power-driven instrumentation of root surfaces during supportive periodontal therapy is an alternative to hand instrumentation. The purpose of this pilot in vitro study was to investigate the efficacy of sub- and supragingival plaque removal with a sonic (AIR: Synea, W and H, Bürmoos, Austria) and two ultrasonic devices (TIG: Tigon+, W and H, Bürmoos, Austria; VEC: Vector, Dürr, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) as well as the health-risk for dental professionals during treatment.

Materials and Methods:

The power-driven devices were utilized to remove plaque from model teeth in dummy heads. The percentage of residual artificial plaque after 2 min of supra- or subgingival instrumentation was calculated by means of image-processing techniques at four sites (n = 576) of each tooth. The Health-Risk-Index (HRI: spatter/residual plaque quotient) with the different power-driven devices was assessed during treatment.

Results:

The smallest amounts of residual plaque were found for the sonic device AIR (8.89% ± 10.92%) and the ultrasonic scaler TIG (8.72% ± 12.02%) (P = 0.707). Significantly more plaque was remained after the use of the ultrasonic scaler VEC (18.76% ± 18.07%) (P < 0.001). Irrespectively of the scaler, efficacy was similar sub- (10.7% ± 11.6%) and supragingivally (13.5% ± 17.2%) (P = 0.901). AIR/TIG demonstrated equal residual amounts of plaque sub- (P = 0.831) as well as supragingivally (P = 0.510). However, AIR/VEC and TIG/VEC were significantly in favor of AIR and TIG (P < 0.001). In contrast, the lowest HRI was found after using VEC (0.0043) and differed considerably for AIR (0.2812) and TIG (0.0287).

Conclusion:

Sonic devices are as effective as ultrasonic devices in the removal of biofilm but bear a higher risk to the dental professional's health concerning the formation of spatter.