![]() ![]() They do not prefer calculus over cementum. However, microbes will stick anywhere in the sulcus. ![]() It gives microbes a nice, rough place to take up residence. Calculus is an inert material that is actually secondary in the periodontal breakdown process. That's a problem.Ĭalculus does not cause periodontal disease. In fact, your training may have made you so calculus oriented that you feel it is the benchmark of high-quality care. Your dental hygiene training focused on teaching calculus removal techniques, and you got points counted off if you left one little spicule that could be detected with air drying or an explorer. We know that calculus removal is an important aspect of professional patient care. That day, I learned I was not "Super Hygienist Woman." He didn't show it to me to make me feel badly, and it really was good for me to see what I had left. I had burnished the calculus so well that it could not be felt with an explorer, but all the same, there was still significant calculus on the distal root of the tooth. After the extraction, he brought the tooth to me to show me the remaining calculus. The prognosis was questionable all along, but the doctor told me to scale it anyway. 2) that I had root planed about a month earlier had to be extracted. One embarrassing moment for me was when a tooth (No. Broken appointments: Communicate the value of the dental hygiene appointment. ![]() My point is that no one - not even periodontists - gets all the calculus off all the time. In discussions about calculus removal, periodontists have shared with me that even when the tissue is laid back and the root is completely exposed, it is sometimes impossible to remove all the calculus that has become deeply embedded in the root surface without doing serious damage to the root. Using scanning electron microscopy, they found "that complete removal of calculus from a periodontally diseased root surface is rare."Īdditionally, I've presented a number of "gift" seminars for periodontists who hire me to provide continuing education for their referring dentists and hygienists. published a scientific article titled, "Total Calculus Removal: An Attainable Goal?" (Journal of Periodontology, Jan 1990, Vol. Here's another newsflash! Rarely, if ever, does anybody ever get all the calculus off. One thing I know is that there is no harsher critic of a hygienist than another hygienist. ![]() Then I have to dig out what she has been missing and get labelled as "rough." The office manager has told me that some patients have complained about me and have requested not to see me again. If someone needs to reschedule, that patient may wind up on my schedule. She has many patients that have been seeing her for years. I've thought about going to the doctor about it, but he seems very fond of her. I have seen a number of her patients, and I almost always find deep subgingival calculus that she missed. The problem is that the other hygienist leaves calculus all the time. Another full-time hygienist has been working in the office for 20 years. I graduated from hygiene school three years ago, and I have worked in the same office full-time since passing my boards. Within the limits of the study, although the instruments produced similar results, root surfaces instrumentated with curettes were rougher and had more root surface tissue removed than with the ultrasonic device.BY DIANNE GLASSCOE WATTERSON, RDH, BS, MBA SEM analysis revealed a similar root surface pattern for the ultrasonic devices, but curettes showed many instrumental scratches, deep gouges, and a relatively large amount of dentin was removed. There were statistically significant differences between control and all the experimental groups (p 0.05), but for Rt and Ry, a significant difference was observed (p < 0.05) among hand instrumentation and ultrasonic devices. The results showed that residual deposits were similar in all tested groups: piezoelectric, 8.7% magnetostrictive, 9.7% hand instrumentation, 11.1% and control, 76.4%. After instrumentation, the teeth were extracted and the presence of residual deposits (roughness and root surfaces characteristics) were analyzed. Teeth were assigned to four experimental groups: group 1, piezoelectric ultrasonic device group 2, magnetostrictive ultrasonic device group 3, hand instrumentation and group 4, untreated teeth (control). Fourteen patients with 35 single root teeth designated for extraction were recruited to the present study. The present study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of different ultrasonic instruments on the root surface. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |