Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2017; 11(02): 268-273
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_232_16
Review Article
Dental Investigation Society

Evidence provided for the use of oscillating instruments in restorative dentistry: A systematic review

Panagiotis Ntovas
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
,
Spyridon Doukoudakis
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
,
John Tzoutzas
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
,
Panagiotis Lagouvardos
1   Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Oscillating diamond instruments are considered gentle sources for the removal of demineralized tooth hard tissues and the preparation of cavity angles and margins needed in minimally invasive dentistry. However, there is a question if literature provides enough evidence for their efficacy in restorative dentistry procedures. A literature search until May 2016 was conducted, using PubMed, Scopus, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. The quality of the studies was assessed using the recommendation of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Fifty-five studies were finally included in the study. Of which, 78.2% of them were laboratory studies and only 21.8% were clinical studies. The strength of recommendation was 5 for most of them and D their grade of evidence. Bond strength of adhesives on surfaces prepared with these instruments, effective caries removal and cutting characteristics of the oscillating instruments were the main targets of the studies. Conventional diamond, steel, and chemical vapor deposition diamond tips and systems based on abrasive slurry were the oscillating tips, used in different studies. The strength of recommendation and grade of evidence of the studies were low. Although these devices seem to be useful for many clinical situations, there is a need for more well-structured evidence-based studies with more widely accepted procedures and common devices, to have more meaningful results and conclusions of higher strength.

Key words:

Chemical vapor deposition tips - oscillating instruments - sonic dental devices - sono-abrasion - ultrasonic dental devices - ultrasonic diamond tips
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Decup F, Lasfargues JJ. Minimal intervention dentistry II: part 4. Minimal intervention techniques of preparation and adhesive restorations. The contribution of the sono-abrasive techniques. Br Dent J 2014; 216: 393-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Catuna MC. Sonic energy. A possible dental application. Preliminary report of an ultrasonic cutting method. Ann Dent 1956; 12: 256-60
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Schulein TM. The era of high speed development in dentistry. J Hist Dent 2002; 50: 131-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Street EV. A critical evaluation of ultrasonics in dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1959; 9: 132-41
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ericson D, Kidd E, McComb D, Mjör I, Noack MJ. Minimally invasive dentistry – Concepts and techniques in cariology. Oral Health Prev Dent 2003; 1: 59-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, Mount GJ. Minimal intervention dentistry – A review. FDI Commission Project 1-97. Int Dent J 2000; 50: 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Koubi S, Tassery H. Minimally invasive dentistry using sonic and ultra-sonic devices in ultraconservative class 2 restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9: 155-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 8: 336-41
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2; 2011. Available from: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o = 5653. [Last retrieved on 2015 Nov 08].
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Lupi-Pegurier L, Muller-Bolla M, Bertrand MF, Ferrua G, Bolla M. Effect of sono-abrasion in the microleakage of a pit and fissure sealant. Oral Health Prev Dent 2004; 2: 19-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Banerjee A, Kidd EA, Watson TF. In vitro evaluation of five alternative methods of carious dentine excavation. Caries Res 2000; 34: 144-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kramer N, García-Godoy F, Lohbauer U, Schneider K, Assmann I, Frankenberger R. Preparation for invasive pit and fissure sealing: Air-abrasion or bur?. Am J Dent 2008; 21: 383-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lima LM, Motisuki C, Corat EJ, Santos-Pinto L. Comparative cutting effectiveness of an ultrasonic diamond tip and a high-speed diamond bur. Minerva Stomatol 2009; 58: 93-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Neves Ade A, Coutinho E, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Caries-removal effectiveness and minimal-invasiveness potential of caries-excavation techniques: A micro-CT investigation. J Dent 2011; 39: 154-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Yazici AR, Ozgünaltay G, Dayangaç B.. A scanning electron microscopic study of different caries removal techniques on human dentin. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 360-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Oliveira AC, Lima LM, Pizzolitto AC, Santos-Pinto L. Evaluation of the smear layer and hybrid layer in noncarious and carious dentin prepared by air abrasion system and diamond tips. Microsc Res Tech 2010; 73: 597-605
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Banerjee A, Kidd EA, Watson TF. Scanning electron microscopic observations of human dentine after mechanical caries excavation. J Dent 2000; 28: 179-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mount GJ. Minimal intervention dentistry: Rationale of cavity design. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 92-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sheets CG, Paquette JM. Ultrasonic tips for conservative restorative dentistry. Dent Today 2002; 21: 102-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Weisrock G, Terrer E, Couderc G, Koubi S, Levallois B, Tassery H. et al. Naturally aesthetic restorations and minimally invasive dentistry. J Minim Interv Dent 2011; 4: 23-4
    Google Scholar
  • 21 de Vasconcellos BT, Thompson JY, de Paula Macedo MR, de Oliveira Maia JM, Oda M, Garone-Netto N. Ultrasonic cavity preparation using CVD coated diamond bur: A case report. Eur J Dent 2013; 7: 127-32
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hugo B, Stassinakis A. Preparation and restoration of small interproximal carious lesions with sonic instruments. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1998; 10: 353-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Nahsan FP, Silva LM, Franco EB, Sampaio PC, Francisconi LF, Scaffa PM. et al. Cavity instrumentation with chemical vapor deposition diamond-coated bur. RGO 2012; 60: 99-103
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Opdam NJ, Roeters JJ, van Berghem E, Eijsvogels E, Bronkhorst E. Microleakage and damage to adjacent teeth when finishing Class II adhesive preparations using either a sonic device or bur. Am J Dent 2002; 15: 317-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Schmidlin PR, Wolleb K, Imfeld T, Gygax M, Lussi A. Influence of beveling and ultrasound application on marginal adaptation of box-only Class II (slot) resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2007; 32: 291-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Giuriato JB, Freitas PN, Dagaze NB, Oda M.. In vitro evaluation of microleakage in class V restorations after cavity preparation with high speed, ultrasonic and laser. Clin Lab Res Dent 2014; 20: 39-45
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Clark D. The operating microscope and ultrasonics; a perfect marriage. Dent Today 2004; 23: 74-6-78-81
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rominu M, Florita Z, Rominu O, Sinescu C, Haiduc C, Kigyosi A. Microleakage associated with the use of ceramic inserts. Eur Cells Mater 2006; 11-28
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Muhammed G, Dayem R. Evaluation of the microleakage of different class V cavities prepared by using Er: YAG laser, ultrasonic device, and conventional rotary instruments with two dentin bonding systems (an In vitro study). Lasers Med Sci 2015; 30: 969-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Horne P, Bennani V, Chandler N, Purton D. Ultrasonic margin preparation for fixed prosthodontics: A pilot study. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012; 24: 201-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ellis R, Bennani V, Purton D, Chandler N, Lowe B. The effect of ultrasonic instruments on the quality of preparation margins and bonding to dentin. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012; 24: 278-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115: 313-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Solá-Ruiz MF, Faus-Matoses I, Del Rio Highsmith J, Fons-Font A. Study of surface topography, roughness, and microleakage after dental preparation with different instrumentation. Int J Prosthodont 2014; 27: 530-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Rominu M, Florita Z, Lakatos S, Rominu RO. Cervical microleakage in class II cavities restored with the Sonicsys approx system. Quintessence Int 2009; 40: e7-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Faus-Matoses I, Solá-Ruiz F. Dental preparation with sonic vs. high-speed finishing: Analysis of microleakage in bonded veneer restorations. J Adhes Dent 2014; 16: 29-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Laufer BZ, Pilo R, Cardash HS. Surface roughness of tooth shoulder preparations created by rotary instrumentation, hand planing, and ultrasonic oscillation. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 75: 4-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Bittar DG, Murakami C, Hesse D, Imparato JC, Mendes FM. Efficacy of two methods for restorative materials' removal in primary teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12: 372-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Geminiani A, Abdel-Azim T, Ercoli C, Feng C, Meirelles L, Massironi D. Influence of oscillating and rotary cutting instruments with electric and turbine handpieces on tooth preparation surfaces. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 51-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 de Oliveira MT, de Freitas PM, de Paula Eduardo C, Ambrosano GM, Giannini M. Influence of diamond sono-abrasion, air-abrasion and Er: YAG laser irradiation on bonding of different adhesive systems to dentin. Eur J Dent 2007; 1: 158-66
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Scotti N, Bregola A, Chiandussi G, Paolino D, Pasqualini D, Berutti E. Comparative evaluation of the enamel margins roughness obtained with different finishing devices. Minerva Stomatol 2012; 61: 1-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kawaguchi FA, Botta SB, Vieira SN, Júnior SJ, Matos AB. Can surface preparation with CVD diamond tip influence on bonding to dental tissues?. Appl Surf Sci 2008; 254: 4118-22
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Takanashi H, Hosaka K, Kishikawa R, Otsuki M, Tagami J. The effect of the dentin preparation with an ultrasonic abrasion on the microtensile bond strength of self-etch adhesive systems. Int Chin Dent J 2010; 10: 7-15
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Souza GS, Souza DB, Santos JL, Klauatu EB, Miranda JE. Influence of rotary diamond and ultrasonic tips on bond strength of composite cingulum rest seats over dentin. Rev Odonto Cienc 2011; 26: 145-50
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Borges AB, da Silva MA, Borges AL, Werkman C, Torres CR, Pucci CR. Microshear bond strength of self-etching bonding systems to ultrasound diamond bur-prepared dentin. J Adhes Dent 2011; 13: 433-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cehreli ZC, Yazici AR, Akca T, Ozgünaltay G. A morphological and micro-tensile bond strength evaluation of a single-bottle adhesive to caries-affected human dentine after four different caries removal techniques. J Dent 2003; 31: 429-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Pioch T, García-Godoy F, Duschner H, Koch MJ, Staehle HJ, Dörfer CE. Effect of cavity preparation instruments (oscillating or rotating) on the composite-dentin interface in primary teeth. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 259-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Cardoso MV, Coutinho E, Ermis RB, Poitevin A, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J. et al. Influence of dentin cavity surface finishing on micro-tensile bond strength of adhesives. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 492-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 da Silva MA, Di Nicolo R, Barcellos DC, Batista GR, Pucci CR, Rocha Gomes Torres C. et al. Influence of CVD diamond tips and Er: YAG laser irradiation on bonding of different adhesive systems to dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14: 14-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Anja B, Walter D, Nicoletta C, Marco F, Pezelj Ribaric S, Ivana M. Influence of air abrasion and sonic technique on microtensile bond strength of one-step self-etch adhesive on human dentin. ScientificWorldJournal 2015; 2015-368745
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Vieira AS, dos Santos MP, Antunes LA, Primo LG, Maia LC. Preparation time and sealing effect of cavities prepared by an ultrasonic device and a high-speed diamond rotary cutting system. J Oral Sci 2007; 49: 207-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Lefkowitz W. Ultrasonics in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1956; 52: 406-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Yazici AR, Yildirim Z, Antonson SA, Kilinc E, Koch D, Antonson DE. et al. Comparison of the Er, Cr: YSGG laser with a chemical vapour deposition bur and conventional techniques for cavity preparation: A microleakage study. Lasers Med Sci 2012; 27: 23-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Mollica FB, Camargo FP, Zamboni SC, Pereira SM, Teixeira SC, Nogueira Jr. L. Pulpal temperature increase with high-speed handpiece, Er: YAG laser and ultrasound tips. J Appl Oral Sci 2008; 16: 209-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Monti Lima, Baffi Diniz, Aparecida Seccani Galassi M, Toledo De Oliveira Ramalho L, Dos Santos-Pinto L. Evaluation of the dentin-pulp complex after cavity preparation with ultrasonic diamond tip. Minerva Stomatol 2011; 60: 15-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Lee MS, Chen YL, Huang PH, Chiang YC, Chang HH, Wu J. Effects of ultrasonic and high-speed air-driven devices on pulp-dentin reactions: An animal study. J Dent Sci 2014; 9: 359-63
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Postle H. Ultrasonic cavity preparation. J Prosthet Dent 1958; 8: 153-60
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Antonio AG, Primo LG, Maia LC. Case report: Ultrasonic cavity preparation – An alternative approach for caries removal in paediatric dentistry. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2005; 6: 105-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Chomyszyn-Gajewska M, Kwapinska H, Zarzecka J. Pain perception in children during caries removal with the Vector system: A pilot study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2006; 7: 38-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Predebon JC, Flório FM, Basting RT. Use of CVDentUS diamond tips for ultrasound in cavity preparation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7: 50-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Li J, Ge LH, Zhao SY. Evaluation of the use of ultrasonic hand piece and micro-invasive tips in children's dental caries therapy. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao 2010; 42: 752-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Waplington M, Blunt L, Walmsley AD, Lumley PJ. Dental hard tissue cutting characteristics of an ultrasonic drill. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 1955; 35: 339-43
    Google Scholar
  • 62 Wicht MJ, Haak R, Fritz UB, Noack MJ. Primary preparation of class II cavities with oscillating systems. Am J Dent 2002; 15: 21-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Josgrilberg EB, Guimarães Mde S, Pansani CA, Cordeiro Rde C. Influence of the power level of an ultra-sonic system on dental cavity preparation. Braz Oral Res 2007; 21: 362-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Liao YS, Lee CL, Liao KT. An improved CVDD bur used in ultrasonic dental system for enamel removal. Procedia CIRP 2013; 5: 231-5
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar