I am a
Home I AM A Search Login

Papers of the Week

Papers: 16 Mar 2024 - 22 Mar 2024

2024 Mar 19

Sci Rep




Effects of a new magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler and a traditional piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler on root surfaces and patient complaints.


You X, Wu X, Chen S


Tooth wear and pain are the primary concerns of patients undergoing periodontal scaling. The aims of this study were to compare the effects of a new magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler and a traditional piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler on tooth surface roughness and calculus removal and to determine their impacts on patient discomfort during supragingival cleaning. This article had two parts: an in vitro study and a clinical study. In the in vitro study, thirty teeth with subgingival calculus were randomly assigned to two scaling treatment groups: magnetostrictive scalers (n = 15) and piezoelectric scalers (n = 15). Surface roughness measurements were taken at baseline and after scaling, and the root samples were visualised by SEM after scaling. Additionally, a single-centre randomised split-mouth clinical trial was conducted. Eighty-five participants diagnosed with chronic gingivitis or periodontitis were randomly assigned to receive supragingival scaling. The magnetostrictive scaler was used in half of the mouths (n = 85), and the piezoelectric scaler was used in the other half of the mouths (n = 85). Data on pain, noise, and vibration were collected using a VAS questionnaire, and the operating time was recorded. In both in vitro and clinical studies, magnetostrictive scalers were reported to be more effective than piezoelectric scalers in removing dental deposits (P < 0.05). Additionally, the root surface after scaling with the magnetostrictive scaler was smoother than that after scaling with the piezoelectric scaler in the in vitro study (P = 0.02). SEM examination also revealed that fewer dental materials were lost after instrumentation with the magnetostrictive scaler than after instrumentation with the piezoelectric scaler. Piezoelectric scalers caused less discomfort to patients in terms of pain, noise, and vibration than magnetostrictive scalers (P < 0.05). According to this clinical study, the magnetostrictive scaler caused more discomfort during supragingival scaling than the piezoelectric scaler. Moreover, the magnetostrictive scaler was also more efficient and produced a smoother root surface with less material loss after scaling than the piezoelectric scaler, as demonstrated in the in vitro study.