Comparative evaluation of Dual Gracey™ curettes and sonic instruments for deposit removal in molar furcations: an in vitro study

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the removal of simulated deposits in molar furcations using Dual Gracey™ curettes and sonic instruments. Material and method: Sixteen molars (80 tooth surfaces) were divided into maxillary (n=8) and mandibular (n=8) molars based on furcation width. Orthodontic wires were inserted into the furcation entrance and divided into two categories: narrow (wire from 0.4–0.6 mm) and wide (wire ≥0.7 mm) furcations. A composite mixture of cyanoacrylate, plaster, and graphite powder was used to simulate the root surface deposits. The molars were mounted on manikins with rubber artificial gingiva to simulate the clinical conditions of ergonomic work. They were randomized according to the periodontal instrument (Dual Gracey™ curettes or sonic instrument), furcation width, dental arch, and side. Planimetric analysis was performed on the buccal, lingual, mesial, distal, and furcation roof surfaces. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test. Result: The percentage of residual deposits differed significantly (p = 0.005) between the instruments, being higher for the curettes (44 ± 16) than sonic instrument (34 ± 11). The furcation roof showed a higher percentage (71 ± 20) than the other dental surfaces: buccal (27 ± 15), lingual (37 ± 19), mesial (41 ± 20), and distal (41 ± 24). Furcation width and arch position did not affect the instrumentation effectiveness; however, a significant difference was observed between the sides of the dental arches. Conclusion: Sonic instruments were more effective in removing root surface deposits from the furcation region. Furthermore, the furcation roof showed the highest percentage of residual deposits.