Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Classic Lit > Non-Surgical Therapy > Flashcards

Non-Surgical Therapy Flashcards

1
Q

Magnusson et al 1984

scaling

A

Subginval scaling, coupled with supervised oral hygiene, significantly improved periodontal condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Becker et al 1979

perio tooth loss per year without treatment

A

0.36 teeth lost per year

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Loe et al 1986

Sri Lankan perio progression

A

8% rapid progression
81% moderate progression
11% no progression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Cobb et al 1996

Tooth loss with and without treatment

A

With treatment: 0.08 teeth/year
Without treatment: 0.28 teeth per year

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Lidnhe et al 1982

15 subjects; critical probing depth for modified widman flap

A

Attachment loss critical depth: 2.9 mm

MWP critical depth: 4.2 mm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Aljateeli et al 2014

Cohort study, 24 patients; half SRP, half SRP (6-8 weeks) then MWP

A

combined treatment had greater PD reduction. 3.5 mm at 3 and 6 month follow ups, only 2mm for SRP group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Universal curette

A

two cutting edges

angled at 90 degrees to terminal shank

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Gracey curette

A

Single cutting edge

70 degrees to terminal shank

Reaches challenging areas, like distal aspects of posterior teeth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Ultrasonic scalers

Invented in 1957 by Dr. Black

A

Magnetostrictive (cavitron)
* stroke patterns
* entire surface active

Piezoelectric (Hu-Friedy Symmetry IQ)
* linear motion
* lateral aspects active

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Ultrasonic scaler safety concerns

A

Old pacemakers, due to magnetic field generated

Nie et al (2020) systematic review:
* most instrumentation is safe distance from heart; no real concern
* cardiologist consult prudent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Muller et al 2014

Air polishing vs ultrasonic

A
  • 50 patients split mouth
  • sites cleaned with air polishing or US scaler every 3 months for 1 year
  • No significant differences in clinical parameters
  • Air polishing less painful
  • study sponsored by air polishing device
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Sculean et al 2004

Ultrasonic vs hand scaling efficacy

A

38 patients RCT
No SSD between groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Sculean et al 2004

Ultrasonic vs laser

A
  • 20 patients split mouth
  • Er:YAG vs US
  • No sig differences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Leon and Vogel 1987

Hand vs Ultrasonic scaling efficacy

A

GCF flow and microbial samples taken

Equally effective at class I furcations

UItrasonic scalers more effective fore class II and III furcations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Aleo et al 1975

Cytotoxic cementum

A

Three groups:
1. Treated with phenol to remove LPS
2. Cementum removal
3. Control

Results:
* Gingival fibroblasts did not attach to control teeth
* Phenol and scaling group had fibroblast attachment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Moore et al 1986

LPS

A
  • 39% of LPS was removed by gentle washing with water
  • 60% LPS removal from brushing for one minute
  • 99% can be removed by gentle methods
  • DO NOT need to compromise root surface
17
Q

Root surface smoothness

A

Waerhaug 1956
* glass like smoothness needed

Rosenberg and Ash 1974
* smoothness not requierd
* no difference in plaque and inflammation in cavitron vs scaling, even with cavitron roughness

Oberholzer and Rateitschak 1996
* intentional roughness vs smooth, no differences in the groups for pocket reduction and attachment gain.

18
Q

Quiryen et al 2000

Full-mouth disinfection vs SRP

A

Three groups:
1. SRP + full-mouth disinfection (FMD))
2. SRP with adjunctive use of chlorhexidine (FMD with chlorhexidine (Fdis))
3. Standard treatment with consecutive root planings quadrant per quadrant (control)

Results:
* SSD in clinical parameters for groups 1 and 2 vs control

19
Q

Quiryen et al 1995

Full mouth disinfection

A
  • SSD reduction in A.A. P. gingivalis and F. nucleatum at one month post FMD and increase in beneficial bacteria at 2 months
20
Q

Full mouth disinfection
Systematic reviews

Eberhard et al 2008, Lang et al 2008

A

Minimal superiority of FMD over conventional quadrant scaling

FMD has not gained widespread traction

21
Q

Wearhaug 1978a

SRP efficiency

A

SRP immediately before extraction of hopeless teeth

Sites presenting with:
* 3mm PD before exo were plaque free 83% of time
* PD 3-5mm were plaque free 39% of time
* >5mm were plaque free only 11% of time

22
Q

Stambaugh (1981)

Scaling efficiency based on PD

A
  • 3.73mm was deepest that could achieve complete smoothness
  • 5.5 mm was max depth that could be effectively instrumented
  • Inflated values as md molars were instrumented for 25 minutes per tooth; 39 minutes for max molar
23
Q

Sherman et al 1990

Skill at subg calc detection following SRP

A
  • High false negatives (77.4%)
  • Low false positives (11.8%)
24
Q

Bower 1979

Furcation size vs currete size

A
  • 81% of furcations were <1mm
  • 58% less than 0.75mm
  • Min size of curette is 0.75 mm

Ghishan et al 2023
* similar findings as Bower study
* Digital analysis allowed for determination that furcation widths were as narrow as 0.24 mm
* Mini gracey curettes are as smallas 0.5mm

25
Q

Fleischer et al 1989

Operator limitations of SRP.

A

Operators of >10 years experience
* SRP + OFD achieved calculus-free surface 78% of time; only 36% of time without flap access

Residents:
* flap access: 45% free
* non-surgical: 18% free

26
Q

Formation of long junctional epithelium (studies)

A

Caton and Zander 1979

Waerhaug 1978b

27
Q

Magnusson et al 1983

A

Long junctional epithelium showed similar resistance to inflammatory infiltrate as normal epithelium

28
Q

Ramfjord et al 1980

restrospective study (8 years), 78 patients; compare SRP efficacy per tooth type

A

Shallow pockets (1-3mm), anterior teeth had better reduction and stability

Mid pockets (4-6mm): reduction similar, but anterior had better attachment outcomes

Deep pockets (>7mm): max molars showed better outcomes than anterior teeth

29
Q

Cobb 1996 (AAPWW)

Attachment gain based on pocket depth

A
30
Q

Segelnick and Weinberg 2006

re-evaluation key points

A
  1. JE re-establishes 1-2 weeks after SRP
  2. CT repair continues for 4-8 weeks
  3. Subg microflora repopulates within 2 months
  4. After 2 months pathogenic bacteria return
  5. Ideal period for re-eval is 4-8 weeks
  6. pt OH tends to relapse without maintenance
  7. anterior teeth (without furcations) show better improvement
  8. re-eval of mobility after occlusal adjustment should be after 6-12 months
31
Q
A

Classic Lit (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions