The retrieved literature discusses scaling treatments and measures gingival recession as a clinical outcome or symptom associated with periodontal conditions, but does not establish that dental scaling directly causes gum recession.
AbstractObjectives: The aim of this prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study was to compare the effectiveness of a newly developed ultrasonic device to that of scaling and root planing for non‐surgical periodontal treatment.Material and Methods: Thirty‐eight patients with moderate to advanced chronic periodontal disease were treated according to an “one‐stage procedure” with either a newly developed ultrasonic device (VUS) (Vector™‐ultrasonic system) or scaling and root planing (SRP) using hand instruments. Clinical assessments by plaque index (PlI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were made prior to and at 6 months after treatment. Differences in clinical parameters were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test and Mann and Whitney U‐test.Results: No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the two groups. The mean value of BOP decreased in the VUS group from 32% at baseline to 20% after 6 months (p<0.001) and in the SRP group from 30% at baseline to 18% after 6 months (p<0.001).The results have shown that at moderately deep sites (initial PD 4–5 mm) mean CAL changed in the test group from 4.6±1.2 to 4.2±1.6 mm (p< 0.001) and in the control group from 4.8±1.3 to 4.4±1.5 mm (p<0.001). At deep sites (inital PD>6 mm) mean CAL changed in the test group from 8.5±1.9 to 7.9±2.4 mm (p<0.001) and in the control group from 7.9±1.6 to 7.2±2.2 mm (p<0.001). No statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were found between the two groups.Conclusion: Non‐surgical periodontal therapy with the tested ultrasonic device may lead to clinical improvements comparable to those obtained with conventional hand instruments.
Periodontitis is a severe gum disease that affects the tissues supporting the teeth, leading to tooth loss if untreated. The primary cause is the accumulation of plaque, a sticky film of bacteria on teeth, which, if not removed through regular brushing and flossing, hardens into tartar. This buildup triggers an inflammatory response, damaging the gums and the bone supporting the teeth. Other contributing factors include poor oral hygiene, smoking, genetic predisposition, certain medications, and systemic conditions such as diabetes. Symptoms of periodontitis include swollen, red, and bleeding gums, persistent bad breath, gum recession, and loose teeth. As the disease progresses, pockets form between the teeth and gums, harboring more bacteria and exacerbating the condition. Treatment for periodontitis involves several steps. Initially, a thorough professional cleaning, known as scaling and root planning, is performed to remove plaque and tartar from below the gum line. Antibacterial medications may be prescribed to control infection. In advanced cases, surgical interventions such as flap surgery or bone and tissue grafts might be necessary to restore damaged structures. Maintaining strict oral hygiene practices, regular dental check-ups, and lifestyle modifications, such as quitting smoking, are crucial in managing and preventing the recurrence of periodontitis. Early detection and treatment are key to preserving oral health and preventing tooth loss.
Treating periodontitis-a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ultrasonic and manual subgingival scaling at different probing pocket depths
## Abstract
Background: Mechanical plaque removal has been commonly accepted to be the basis for periodontal treatment. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of ultrasonic and manual subgingival scaling at different initial probing pocket depths (PPD) in periodontal treatment.
Methods: English-language databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Medline, and ClinicalTrials.gov, by January, 2019) were searched. Weighted mean differences in primary outcomes, PPD and clinical attachment loss (CAL) reduction, were estimated by random effects model. Secondary outcomes, bleeding on probing (BOP), gingival recession (GR), and post-scaling residual dental calculus, were analyzed by comparing the results of each study. The quality of RCTs was appraised with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The GRADE approach was used to assess quality of evidence.
Results: Ten randomized controlled trials were included out of 1434 identified. Initial PPD and follow-up periods formed subgroups. For 3-months f
Everything we examined (3)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.