Santos, Fabio AndrePochapski, Marcia ThaisLeal, Paola Cristina [UNESP]Gimenes-Sakima, Patricia Panizzi [UNESP]Marcantonio, Elcio [UNESP]2014-05-202014-05-202008-06-01Clinical Oral Investigations. Heidelberg: Springer Heidelberg, v. 12, n. 2, p. 143-150, 2008.1432-6981http://hdl.handle.net/11449/16028The present study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of different ultrasonic instruments on the root surface. Fourteen patients with 35 single root teeth designated for extraction were recruited to the present study. 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). After instrumentation, the teeth were extracted and the presence of residual deposits (roughness and root surfaces characteristics) were analyzed. 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%. There were statistically significant differences between control and all the experimental groups (p < 0.0001). With respect to roughness parameters evaluation, R(a) and R(z) of the roots treated with the different instruments showed a similar pattern (p > 0.05), but for R(t) and R(y), a significant difference was observed (p < 0.05) among hand instrumentation and ultrasonic devices. 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. 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.143-150engdental scalingroot planningdental instrumentsdental calculusdental plaqueArtigo10.1007/s00784-007-0167-3WOS:000255535900007Acesso restrito